MEMORIAL  OF  HOBBRT  McCORMICK. 


HD 
9486 

U4M46 


D)emorial 

or  Robert  iDcCormick 


lease,  Illinois,  1898 


REPRINTED  IN  1898 

BY 

THE  BLAKELY  PRINTING  CO. 

184-186  Monroe  St. 

CHICAGO 


MEMORIAL 


EGBERT  MCCOEMICK, 


THE  M' COR  MICK   K 


Reproduced  by  photograph  from'original  cover. 


MEMORIAL 


OF 


BEING  A  BRIEF  HISTORY  OK  HIS 


LIFE,  CHARACTER  AND  INVENTIONS 


INCLUDING 


THE   EARLY    HISTORY   OF 

THE   MCCORMICK   REAPER 


CHICAGO : 
BARNARD  &  GUNTHORP.  PRINTERS,  41  &  46  LASALLE  STREET. 

1885. 


MF9LCTING 
PAGD  WEPt  DD 
PR9DlttDPti°. 
T9(JRAPHICALLY 

BY  THf 
ILLINOIS 
ENGPAVING 
COMPANY 


CHICAGO. 


PREFACE. 

This  book  is  a  photo-engraved  reprint  of  a  pamphlet 
printed  in  Chicago  in  1885.  As  it  contains  much  valuable 
history,  it  is  thought  to  be  a  suitable  compliment  to  "Over- 
looked Pages  of  Reaper  History,  Chicago,  Illinois,  1897." 
The  name  of  the  author  is  not  given  in  the  original  publication, 
but  the  contents  show  plainly  an  effort  to  establish  the  fact 
that  to  Robert  McCormick  and  Leander  McCormick  of  Virginia 
belongs  the  credit  of  inventing  the  McCormick  reaper. 

J.    RUSSELL  PARSONS, 
LEWIS  MILLER, 
JOHN  F.   STEWARD. 


CHICAGO,   ILLINOIS,  June,   1898, 


IN  DEX. 


PAGE. 

Memorial  by  Wm.  S.  McCormick,  of  Wayne  County,  Mo 7 

Letter         "      "      "  "  "  "  8 


Memorial  by  Robert  McCormick,  of  Augusta  County,  Va 10 

"  "    Col.  Thomas  S.  Paxton,  of  Rockbridge  County,  Va 11 

"  "    Horatio  Thompson,  D.D.  "  "  12 

"  "    Zechariah  McChesney,  of  Spring  Hill,  Va 13 

Early  History  by  Leander  J.  McCormick 14 

Memorial  by  Henrietta  M.  McCormick 16 

"          to  Congress,  by  C.  H.  McCormick,  asking  extension  of  his  patent  of 

1834 17,  18,  19,  20 

Remonstrance  from  the  Citizens  of  New  York 21 

Bell's  Reaper  as  operated  in  1828. 24 

Randall's  Reaper  as  used  in  1833 > 26 

Hussey's  Reaper  as  patented  in  1833 27 

C.  H.  McCormick's  reaper  as  patented  in  1834 29 

Examiner  Chas.  G.  Page's  opinion , 31 

McCormick's  Sickle.. 33 

Moore  &  Haskell's  Sickle 33 

Moore  &  Haskell's  Sickle 34 

McCormick's  Guards 35 

Hussey's  Raker's  Seat 39 

McCormick's  Raker's  Seat 40 

Extracts  from  Brief   Narrative  of  the  Invention  of  Reaping  Machines,  by  a 

Maryland  Farmer  and  Machinist 44 

Origin  of  the  McCormick  Reaper,  as  it  appeared  in  "  The  Farmers'  Advance," 

C.  H.  McCormick,  Pres 52 

Honors  Awarded  in  Europe • ..." 57 

Letter  from  "The  Factory  and  Farm" , 4  58 


ROBERT  McCoRMicK. 


SKETCH  OF  HIS  BIRTH,  LIFE,  CHARACTER,  INVENTIONS,  ETC. 


Robert  McCormick,  the  subject  of  this  sketch,  was  the  sixth 
child  of  Robert  and  Martha  (Sanderson)  McCormick;  .he  was 
born  June  8,  1780,  in  a  large  old-fashioned  log  house  on  "Walnut 
Grove"  farm,  his  father's  homestead,  in  Rockbridge  county,  Vir- 
ginia. H}s  father,  Robert,  was  a  native  of  Central  Pennsylvania, 
having  been  born  near  Harrisbtirg  in  1738.  His  grandparents, 
Thomas  and  Elizabeth  (Carruth)  McCormick,  came  to  America 
from  the  North  of  Ireland,  in  1735. 

Mr.  McCormick  received  a  common  school  education  at  a  country 
school,  near  his  own  home,  and  was  brought  up  by  his  parents 
according  to  the  strictest  tenets  of  the  Seceder  branch  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church, 

On  February  u,  1808,  he  married  Mary  Anna  Hall,  daughter  of 
Patrick  and  Susan  (McChesney)  Hall.* 

Mr.  McCormick.  was  a  man  of  great  energy,  and  determination 
of  character,  but  withal  of  a  most  kind  and  generous  disposition. 
He  was  highly  esteemed  as  an  upright,  reliable  citizen,  a  man  of 
great  moral  worth,  and  one  "  whose  word  was  as  good  as  his  bond." 

When  advised  by  his  lawyer  at  one  time  when  in  financial  trouble 
(brought  about  through  the  rascality  of  his  partner)  that  he  could 
legally  evade  paying  his  debts  that  were  pressing  him,  by  putting 
his  property  out  of  his  hands,  his  reply  was  "  no,  I  would  rather 
die  and  leave  my  children  without  one  dollar,  than  that  it  should 
ever  be  said  that  their  father  had  done  a  dishonest  act." 

Throughout  his  life  he  took  great  pleasure  in  the  acquirement  of 
historical  and  scientific  knowledge,  and  was  very  fond  of  astronomy. 
He  subscribed  to  the  leading  magazines  of  the  day,  and  kept  him- 
self well  posted  in  all  that  was  transpiring  around  him. 

He  was  a  man  of  remarkable  mechanical  genius,  and  seldom 
failed  to  accomplish  what  he  undertook.  Having  blacksmith  and 
carpenter  shops,  and  being  himself  naturally  a  good  workman  with 

*  Patrick  Hall  was  born  in  Armagh  county,  Ireland,  in  1751,  emigrated  to 
America  in  1770  and  settled  in  Augusta  county,  Va.,  where  he  married  Susan  Mc- 
Chesney aholit  the  year  1775. 


almost  any  kind  of  'tools,  it  was  no  hard  matter  for  him  to  make 
whatever  he  desired  of  either  wood  or  iron. 

The  first  record  we  have  of  his  endeavors  in  the  line  of  invention 
was  in  the  construction  of  a  reaping  machine,  on  which  he  worked 
and  experimented  from  and  after  1809  From  the  nature  of  the 
testimony  concerning  his  early  inventions  in  this  line,  it  would 
appear  that  he  may  have  constructed  more  than  one  machine  be- 
tween the  years  1809  and  1825.  At  all  events,  there  is  evidence  to 
show  that  he  was  engaged  at  various  times  during  those- years,  ex- 
perimenting on  his  reaper,  and  that  he  used  various  devices  for 
cutting,  and  in  all  probability  he  made  more  than  one  complete  ma- 
chine during  all  those  sixteen  or  seventeen  years.  This  would 
seem  to  be  corroborated  by  the  statements,  first,  of  his  nephew 
(Robert  McCormick),  who  says  that  his  father  told  him  that  the 
said  Robert  McCormiek  had  invented  a  reaper  in  1809;  second, 
of  his  son  Cyrus,  who  states  that  his  father  had  invented  a  reaper 
in  1816;  third,  by  Robert  McCormick  (his  nephew),  again,  who 
states  that  his  uncle  Robert  showed  him  in  the  year  1825  or  1826,  a 
machine  he  had  just  invented. 

His  first  machine  is  described  as  being  in  outline  and  general  form 
very  much  like  the  reaper  of  the  present  day.  It  ran  on  two  wheels, 
with  a  platform  to  receive  the  grain  in  the  rear  of  the  cutting  apparatus. 
One  of  the  cutting  devices  he  used  on  this  machine  was  a  system  of  ro- 
tary saws,  about  eight  or  ten  inches  in  diameter,  which  revolved,  shear 
fashion,  past  the  edge  of  a  stationary  knife.  The  saws  were  driven 
by  bands  from  a  cylinder,  which  was  turned  by  the  revolution  of  the 
main  wheels  of  the  machine.  This  machine  had  vertical  reels 
(very  similar  to  some  of  those  used  at  the  present  day)  to  sweep 
the  grain  across  the  cutters,  and  .when  cut,  delivered  it  on  a 
platform  in  the  rear  of  the  cutters,  and  an  endless  apron  carried 
it  across  the  platform  and  delivered  it  on  one  side  of  the  machine. 
Another  cutting  device  which  he  used  consisted  of  stationary 
cuvued  sickles,  against  which  the  grain  was  forced  and  cut  by 
vertical  reels  with  pins  in  their  peripheries.  The  horses  walked 
at  the  side  of  the  grain,  drawing  the  machine,  and  were  attached 
to  it  by  shafts  or  a  pole.  The  machine  was  not  what  would 
be  called  a  success,  but  it  had  the  main  features  that  are  vital 
in  the  construction  of  all  grain  cutting  machines  of  the  present 
day,  and  therein  justifies  the  claim  made  for  its  author,  of  origin- 
ality of  thought,  and  priority  of  invention,  and  demonstrates  be- 
yond a  doubt  that  in  him  was  the  conception  of,  and  to  him  be- 
longs the  credit  of  inventing,  and  constructing  the  first  reaper 
which  cut  grain  successfully  The  certificates  printed  hereafter 
clearly  establish  the  fact  that  he  anticipated,  in  nearly  all  essential 
and  vital  points,  every  other  American  or  English  reaper.  The 


parts  of  his  early  machine  were  for  many  years  'stored  away  in 
the  loft  of  the  old  malt  house,  on  the  home  farm,  and  were  famil- 
iar objects  to  those  about  the  farm. 

Recognizing  the  imperfections  in  the  machine,  and  always  on  the 
alert  for  improvements,  between  the  years  1828  and  1830*  he  invented 
and  applied  to  it  what  is  known  as  the  vibrating  sickle  and  the  hor- 
izontal reel.  By  this  combination  his  reaper  became  a  practical 
success.  His  neighbors,  who  up  to  that  time  had  made-  light  of  his 
efforts  and  reflected  upon  him  for  wasting  time  that  they  thought 
he  could  have  applied  to  much  better  advantage  by  attending  to  his 
farm  duties,  now  began  to  appreciate  the  greatness  of  his  inventions, 
and  to  recognize  in  the  McCormick  Reaper  the  pioneer  of  the  greatest 
labor-saving  farm  implement  that  the  world  had  produced.  LTike  its 
predecessor,  but  to  a  greater  degree,  in  its  characteristics  this 
machine  comprised  the  essential  features  of  all  successful  grain- 
cutting  machinery  of  the  present  day.  It  was  drawn  by  two 
horses  that  walked  in  front  of  the  main  frame  and  close  to  the 
standing  grain.  It  had  one  main  driving  wheel  in  the  main  frame, 
and  a  grain  wheel  or  slide  at  the  outer  end  of  the  platform.  It  had 
a  cutter  bar,  attached  to  and  back  of  which  was  the  platform  on 
which  the  grain  fell.  The  grain  was  cut  by  a  vibrating  sickle,  and 
carried  back  to  the  sickle  and  cast  down  upon  the  platform  by  a  re- 
volving horizontal  reel.  The  reel  had  slats,  or  ribs,  which  dipped 
into  the  grain  in  front  of  the  sickle.  The  grain  divider  of  the  ma- 
chine was  a  long  pointed  piece  of  wood  extending  some  five  feet 
forward  of  the  sickle,  to  support  the  grain  end  of  the  reel.  The 
entire  side  of  the  machine,  from  the  point  of  the  divider  named  to 
the  rear  corner  of  the  platform  and  across  the  back  of  the  platform, 
was  surrounded  with  an  upright  canvas  about  three  feet  in  width. 
The  grain  was  raked  off  at  the  side  in  bundles  by  a  man  who 
walked  beside  the  machine.  The  driver  did  not  ride  on  the  ma- 
chine, but  on  one  of  the  horses  that  drew  it. 

During  the  years  previous  to  1844  there  were  a  number  of  ma- 
chines built.  In  1844  there  were  twenty-five  built.  In  1845  there 
were  fifty  built.  In  1846  there  were  seventy-five  built,  in  the  latter 
L.  J.  owned  one-third. 

All  of  the  work  on  these  machines  was  done  under  the  direction 
of  Robert  McCormick,  who  continued  to  be  actively  engaged  in 
the  manufacture  and  improvement  of  his  reaping  machines  until 
his  death  in  1846. 

From  this  modest  beginning  dates  the  history  of  the  vast  business 
of  manufacturing  grain  and  grass  cutting  machinery,  which  at  the 
present  day,  gives  employment,  directly  and  indirectly,  to  tens  of 

*  See  certificate  of  William  S.  McCormick,  pages  7,  8  and  9. 


thousands  of  men,  affords  investment  for  millions  of  dollars,  and 
turns  the  countless  wheels  of  an  amount  of  machinery  that,  were 
it  possible  to  give  the  figures,  it  would  seem  incredible.  When 
we  think  of  the  thousands  of  reaping  and  mowing  machines 
that  are  annually  sold  to  the  farmers  on  every  continent,  and  the 
millions  of  such  machines  that  are  now  in  operation,  what  man  can 
look  at  the  record  of  Robert  McCormick's  perseverance  and  suc- 
cess, in  the.  face  of  innumerable  obstacles,  without  feelings  of  rev- 
erence and  admiration  for  the  man  in  whose  brain  was  the  incep- 
tion, and  through  whose  mechanical  skill  and  ingenuity  was  the 
successful  application  of  an  invention  which  has  proven  so  great 
and  world-wide  a  boon,  not  only  to  the  farming  community,  but, 
indirectly,  to  all  civilized  mankind. 

But  the  reaping  machine* was  not  the  only  mechanical  problem 
that  commanded  the  thought  and  inventive  genius  of  Robert  Mc- 
Cormick.  He  found  time  to  exercise  his  inventive  mind  in  other 
directions  as  well,  and  reaped  harvests  of  success  in  several  other 
mechanical  inventions,  briefly  described  as  follows: 

In  the  winter  of  1830-31  there  was  a  great  deal  of  talk  and  much 
in  the  newspapers  on  the  subject  of  raising  hemp.  Only  one  thing 
seemed  to  be  in  the  way  of  its  becoming  a  very  profitable  product, 
and  that  was  the  difficultv  of  cheaply  and  profitably  reducing  the 
fiber  to  its  required  marketable  shape.  Acting  on  this  seeming 
demand,  Robert  McCormick  invented  a  very  ingenious  and  perfect 
working  hemp-break,  and  in  connection  with  it  a  horse-power,  by 
which  it  was  driven,  and  in  the  fall  of  1831  he  operated  it  success- 
fully. He  also  invented  a  machine  for  cleaning  the  hemp  when 
broken.  The  excitement  over  hemp-raising,  however,  dying  out, 
the  demand  for  the  machines  never  amounted  to  much,  although  a 
number  of  them  were  built  and  sold. 

Mr.  McCormick  at  another  time  invented  and  manufactured  a  very 
ingenious  threshing  machine,  in  connection  with  which  he  made  a 
horse  power  of  peculiar  construction. 

He  also  built  a  clover  sheller  of  stone,  resembling  an  ordinary 
mill  somewhat,  but  never  did  anything  with  it  except  for  his  own 
use.  He  also  invented  and  made  a  blacksmith's  bellows,  which 
was  of  a  tub  form,  and  of  which  he  built  and  sold  a  large  number. 

He  invented  a  water  power  that  worked  by  confined  pressure, 
somewhat  on  the  principal  of  the  steam  engine. 

He  also  invented  a  hill-side  plow,*  for  which  alone  he  is  entitled  to 
rank  among  the  first  inventors  of  the  age,  and  had  it  not  been  for 
the  invention  and  perfection  of  the  reaper,  it  would  probably  have 
made  the  name  McCormick  as  well  known  in  connection  with 

*  See  letter  of  Wm.  S.  McCormick,  pages  7,  8  and  0. 


that  line  of  industry  as  it  is  in  connection  with  the  harvesting  of 
the  crops. 

As  it  was  Mr.  McCormick's  ambition  that  his  sons  should  follow 
husbandry  as  a  profession,  he  purchased  a  farm  of  three  hundred 
acres,  situated  a  mile  and  a  half  from  his  own  homestead,  and  another 
of  seven  hundred  acres  on  the  South  river,  nine  miles  west  of  his 
home.  On  each  of  these  places  he  had  a  saw  mill,  and  on  the  South 
river  farm  and  his  home  place  he  had  flour  mills,  which  he  operated 
successfully.* 

It  will  be  seen  that  he  was  a  man  of  great  business  and  executive 
ability,  as  well  as  inventive  genius,  when  the  extensive  operations  he 
had  on  hand  constantly  are  considered.  For  many  years  he  carried  on 
farming  on  four  farms,  aggregating  in  all  1,800  acres,  and  at  the  same 
time  operated  two  flour  mills  and  two  saw  mills,  besides  -  which  he 
kept  carpenter  and  blacksmith  shops  busy,  manufacturing  various 
kinds  of  machinery  of  his  own  invention.  In  all  of  these  operations 
he  had  employed  during  much  of  the  time  both  white  and  slave 
labor. 

About  the  year  1834  Mr.  McCormick  engaged  with  his  son  Cyrus 
and  a  'man  by  the  name  of  Black  in  the  iron  smelting  business, 
which  proved  to  have  been  the  one  great  mistake  of  his  life.  The}' 
bought  land  and  built  what  is  known  as  the  '*  Cotopaxi  Furnace," 
which  was  situated  on  the  South  river,  four  miles  from  Mr.  McCor- 
mick's home.  Mr.  McCormick  furnished  the  entire  capital  for 
conducting  the  business,  although  his  interest  in  the  enterprise  was 
one-quarter,  while  his  son  Cyrus  owned  one-half.  The  money 
of  the  firm  was  deposited  in  a  bank  in  Richmond.  After  several  years 
of  meager  Jesuits  came  the  financial  panic  of  1837.  At  this  time 
Black  drew  the  firm's  cash  from  the  bank,  and  then  put  all  his  own 
property  out  of  his  hands.  Thus  there  was  no  money  available  to 
meet  the  indebtedness  of  the  firm,  and  their  rascally  partner  could 
not  be  made  to  disgorge  one  dollar  of  the  funds  he  had  embezzled. 
In  this  combination  of  misfortunes  the  furnace  had  to  be  closed,  and 
Mr.  Robert  McCormick  had  to  bend  every  energy  to  the  liqui- 
dating and  settling  the  claims  of  the  firm's  creditors. 

Mr.  McCormick  was  compelled,  on  account  of  this  trouble,  to  sell 
the  old  Providence  farm  which  belonged  to  his  wife,  as  well  as 
the  furnace  property.  Cyrus  soon  after  left  home  with  the  inten- 
tion of  seeing  what  he  could  do  towards  establishing  and  intro- 
ducing the  reaper  into  the  vast  wheat  fields  of  the  west.  Leander 

*  Prior  to  1837,  Mr.  McCormick  gave  the  south  river' farm  to  his  son  Cyrus  H., 
but  on  account  of  the  losses  sustained  in  the  furnace  business,  he  deeded  back  that 
property  to  his  father,  in  part  payment  of  his  share  of  said  losses.  Mr.  McCormick 
afterwards  gave  the  same  property  to  his  son  Leander  J. 

He  gave  the  home  farm,  at  his  death,  to  his  son  William  S. 


left  school,  and  went  into  the  shop;  William  S.  took  entire  manage- 
ment of  the  farming  operations  and  finances,  while  Mr.  McCormick 
and  Leander  made  reapers,  horse-powers,  blacksmith's  bellows, 
and  other  machinery  and  tools  which  were  sold.  Thus  the  family 
immediately  combined  their  efforts  to  free  themselves  from  these 
obligations,  and  the  proceds  of  everything  that  could  be  turned  into 
cash  was  applied  to  the  extinguishing  of  debts  for  which  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick became  liable  through  his  connection  with  that  unfortunate 
enterprise. 

About  the  time  he  was  beginning  to  feel  the  freedom  of  once  more 
being  out  of  debt,  he  was  overtaken  by  a  heavy  snow  storm  in  com- 
ing home  from  his  South  River  farm,  where  he  had  been  attend- 
ing to  the  shipment  of  reaping  machines  to  Lynchburg.  He  thus 
became  chilled,  took  a  severe  cold  which  settled  on  his  lungs,  and 
from  the  effects  of  which  he  never  recovered. 

He  died  at  his  home  in  Rockbridge  county,  Virginia,  on  July  4. 
1846,  and  was  buried  in  the  old  Providence  grave  yard. 

He  had  a  family  of  eight  children,  five  sons  and  three  daughters, 
viz:  Cyrus  H.,  Robert  Hall,  Susan,  William  Sanderson,  Mary  Caro- 
line, Leander  James,  John  Prestley,  and  Amanda  J.  Two  of  his  sons 
and  one  daughter  died  young.  His  three  sons,  Cyrus  H.,  William  S., 
and  Leander  J.,  settled  in  Chicago  and  engaged  in  the  manufacture 
of  reapers  and  mowers,  and  from  their  combined  efforts  grew  the 
great  manufacturing  concern  bearing  the  name  of  "  McCormick."  * 

*  It  may  be  interesting  to  know  in  this  connection  that  on  the  death  of"  Mr.  Robert 
McCormick,  his  son  Leander  went  to  live  on  the  South  River  farm,  which  had 
been  left  him  by  his  father,  and  was  arranging  to  continue  the  manufacture  of 
reapers  at  that  place  (as  the  farm  was  provided  with  a  saw  mill  and  the  other 
necessary  appliances,  as  stated  above),  when  Cyrus  induced  him  to  go  to  Cincinnati 
to  superintend  the  construction  of  one  hundred  machines  for  the  harvest  of  1847, 
by  offering  him  a  one-third  interest  in  the  business  at  that  place.  He  returned  to 
Virginia  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  and  made  the  necessary  arrangements  and  came 
to  Chicago  to  live  in  1848,  when  he  took  charge  of  the  manufacturing  department 
for  McCormick,  Ogden  &  Co.,  a  one-sixth  interest  in  the  business  having  been  given 
him.  William  S  remained  on  the  home  farm,  it  having  been  left  him  by  his  father, 
but  was  also  induced  to  come  to  Chicago  in  1850,  and  assumed  the  charge  of  the 
financial  department.  In  this  way  the  three  brothers,  Cyrus  H.,  W.  S.  and  L  J., 
became  united  in  introducing  and  bringing  to  perfection,  in  the  west  the  work  already 
begun  by  their  father 


Early  History  and  Invention  of  the  McCormick  Reaper. 


By  WILLIAM  S.  McCoKMiCK,  of  Wayne  County,  Missouri. 


My  name  is  William  S.  McCormick.  I  am  seventy-six  years  of 
age.  I  was  born  in  Augusta  county,  Virginia. 

I  am  intimately  acquainted  with  the  invention  of  the  McCormick 
Reaper.  I  saw  this  great  machine  progress  step  by  step  from  the 
unsuccessful  experiment  my  uncle,  Robert  McCormick,  first  tried 
prior  to  the  fall  of  1828  or  spring  of  1829,  when  I  went  to  live  with 
my  uncle,  Robert  McCormick.  This  machine  was  a  small  two- 
wheeled  reaper,  drawn  by  a  horse  in  shafts,  with  stationary  cutters. 
This  failed  to  work  and  it  was  laid  aside  by  my  uncle. 

And  I  was  personally  present  when  my  old  uncle,  Robt.  McCor- 
mick, the  father  of  C.  H.  and  L.  J.  McCo'rmick,  first  conceived  the 
idea  of  his  second  reaping  machine,  subsequently  patented.  This 
was  in  1829.  or  1830.  I  myself  and  one  Samuel  Hite  were  the  men 
who  did  the  work  for  Robert  McCormick  while  he  invented  and 
experimented  with  the  machine.  I  know  that  Robt.  McCormick 
was  the  sole  inventor  of  the  reaping  machine.  His  skillful  brain 
invented  each  parcel  of  the  reaper  in  the  order  I  now  name: 

The  machine  was  drawn  by  horses  in  front  by  the  standing  grain. 
It  had  a  master-wheel,  say  three  feet  in  diameter.  The  sickle  was 
vibrating  and  driven  by  a  crank  which  got  its  motion  from  gear- 
wheels from  the  main  axle.  The  sickle  was  supported  by  projecting 
fingers  about  three  inches  apart.  Behind  this  sickle  there  was  a 
platform  on  which  the  grain  fell,  where  it  was  swept  back  by  the 
revolving  horizontal  reel  to  the  sickle  and  cut,  and  was  faked  by  a 
man.  The  reel  was  supported  by  posts  at  each  end  and  was  drive'n 
by  a  band  from  the  main  axle. 

The  foregoing  described  machine  was  invented  solely  and  alone 
by  my  uncle  Robert  McCormick.  This  I  know.  There  can  be  no- 
doubt  about  it  whatever.  I  was  present.  I  lived  with  my  uncle  and 
worked  with  him  on  this  machine.  He  gave  his  orders  and  they 
were  followed  by  myself  and  other  workmen.  He  made  his  sug- 
gestions and  we  followed  them.  He  directed  changes  and  we  made 


8 

them.  I  know  that  the  conception  and  creation  was  wholly  from 
his  own  brain.  I  never  heard,  his  right  as  the  inventor  of  this 
machine  questioned  by  any  one,  nor  did  I  hear  any  one  else  at  that 
time  claim  any  of  the  invention.  On  the  contrary  I  know  that  my 
uncle,  Robt.  McCormick,  claimed  the  invention  of  the  machine, 
He  was  endowed  with  a  mind  skilled  and  inventive,  ancj  he  had  in* 
vented  other  matters. 

In  witness  of  the  foregoing  statement*!, have . hereunto  set'rfiy 
jhand  this  5th  day  of  June,  1880. 

(Signed)  WM.  S.  McCoRMiCK. 

MARCH  4,  1880. 

PATTERSON,  WAYNE  COUNTY,  Mo.,  Nov.  7th,  1878. 

DEAR  COUSIN:  Yours  of  October  28th  has  just  come  to  hand 
and  found  myself  and  wife  both  very  feeble  in  health. 

I  will,  however,  answer  your  letter  and  give  you  such  facts  as  I 
can  call  to  mind  or  gather  up  in  regard  to  the  early  history  of  the 
McCormick  Reaper. 

My  uncle,  Robert  McCormick,  had  built  a  small  two-wheeled 
reaper  with  stationary  cutters,  drawn  by  a  horse  in  shafts,  which 
failed  to  work,  and  he  laid  it  aside,  before  I  went  to  live  with  him, 
which  was  in  the  fall  of  1828  or  in  the  spring  of  1829.  And  I  was 
personally  present  when  uncle  Robert  conceived  the  idea  of  his  sec- 
ond machine.  Myself  and  Sam  Hight  were  the  workmen  who  did 
the  work;  Cyrus  McCormick  helping  also.  But  as  to  the  invention 
of  the  machine,  that  was  my  dear  old  uncle  Robert's  and  none  else. 
In  several  cases  in  putting  it  up  he  would  speak  to  me  noting  it  thus 
and  so,  as  I  was  his  right-har^  man ;  but  he  was  the  sole  inventor  of 
the  whole  thing,  for  I  know  it  well. 

I  was  living  with  him  for  some  time  before  he  tried  his  second 
wheat  cutter.  The  first  thing  I  helped  him  to  do  was  to  build  a  water- 
power  to  operate  like  steam  from  the  old  mill-trunk;  but  it  would 
not  work.  Next  we  tried  a  horse-power  (hemp  break),  which  did 
exceedingly  well;  and  next  was  his  second  wheat-cutter.  And  all 
from  his  own  head.  He  was  the  greatest  genius  or  natural  mechan- 
ic I  ever  saw — at  least  I  looked  upon  him  as  such. 

The  machine  was  drawn  by  the  horses  in  front  by  the  standing 
grain;  and  it  was  built  on  one  master-wheel,  say  three  feet  in  diame- 
ter, and  ran  out  into  the  grain  to  the  right  the  length  of  the  sickle, 
with  a  slide  on  the  further  end.  ^The  sickle  cut  by  horizontal 
crank  motion  from  the  main  wheel.  ,  The  reel  worked  by  bands  over 
the  cutter,  put  in  motion  by  a  crank  by  the  master-wheel  horizontal. 
The  wheat  was  thrown, down  behind  the  platform  by  the  reel  and 
raked  offby  hand. 


You  know  the  blacksmith  bellows  my  uncle  Robert  invented  wercJ 
in  operation  in  his  shop  before  I  went  there  to  live  in  1828. 

And  as  to  his  hill  side  plow,  the  two  mole-boards  were  attached 
together,  but  could  move  under  the  beam  and  formed  the  land  side 
in  going  one  way,  and  the  other  going  the  other;  but  the  sheer 
moved  only  a  little  hard.  Had  a  cutter  on  both  ends. 

This  is  about  as  well  as  I  can  recollect  so  far  back. 

WM.  S.  McCoRMiCK. 

PATTERSON,  WAYNE  Co.,  Mo.,  Nov.  28,  1878. 

DEAR  COUSIN:  Yours  of  the  2d  inst.  just  came  to  hand,  and  I 
am  just  able  to  be  .up  most  all  the  time,  but  my  companion  is  now 
down  while  I  write. 

Now,  as  to  the  machine,  etc.:  From  the  best  information  I  can 
get  from  my  old  torn  books,  the  work  was  done  in  making  the  first 
reaping  machine  at  your  father's,  in  the  year  1829.  I  made  bellows 
at  your  papa's  in  the  year  1830,  after  we  came  back  from  Wash- 
ington city,  where  your  father,  Cyrus  and  myself  had  gone  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  a  patent  for  the  reaper.  My  age  at  that  time 
was  twenty-five  years. 

The  machine  was  pretty  much  the  "  Old  Reliable  " — the  horses 
hitched  to  it  in  the  same  way.  At  least  the  "  Old  Reliable  "  was 
made  from  it.  The  sickle,  or  cutter,  was  straight  and  cut  with  a 
crank  motion,  and  the  reel  or  rake  turned  with  a  band  over  the  cut- 
ter and  threw  the  wheat  on  the  platform,  and  when  there  was 
sufficient  for  a  bundle  it  was  raked  off  by  hand.  This  is  about  the 
best  recollection  of  the  same  at  this  late  date. 

My  dear  old  uncle  had  made  a  small  machine,  or  part  of  one,  be- 
fore I  went  there  to  live  with  him  that  stood  up,  and  a  crooked 
cutter  was  to  come  around  horizontally,  but  it  never  did  any  good, 
and  I  have  often  laughed  at  him  about  it,  and  he  never  did  anything 
more  with  it  after  I  came  to  live  with  him.  He  never  made  but  the 
one  machine  while  I  lived  there  with  him.  I  lived  with  him  there 
till  about  the  last  of  the  year  1831.  I  was  making  bellows  all  the 
time. 

I  believe  I  have  given  you  about  all  the  information  I  can  respect- 
ing the  first  wheat-cutter  made  by  your  father,  and  if  I  can  do  any- 
thing more  for  you  in  that  line  it  will  be  most  cheerfully  done.  So, 
no  more  at  present,  but  remain, 

Your  most  affectionate  cousin, 

WM.   S.  McCoRMjcK. 

P.  S. — My  impression  was,  before  I  left  the  State  of  Virginia, 
that  my  uncle  had  given  it  to  Cyrus;  but  I  don't  think  I  got  it 
directly  from  himself.  WM.  S.  McC. 


HISTORY  AND  INVENTION  OF  THE  McCORMICK  REAPER. 


By  ROBERT  MCCORMICK,  County  of  Augusta,  State  of  Virginia; 
Aged  76  Years. 


My  first  recollection  of  the  invention  of  the  McCormick 
Reaper  was  in  1809,  when  I  was  a  small  boy.  My  father  told 
me  that  his  brother  Robert  (father  of  Cyrus  H.  and  L.  J.  Mc- 
Cormick) had  invented  a  reaping  machine  to  be  drawn  by  horse- 
power, but  that  their  father  discouraged  the  work  at  the  time. 

In  1825  or  1826  Robert  McCormick  (father  of  Cyrus  H.  and 
L.  J.  McCormick)  came  to  me  and  told  me  he  had  invented  a  reap- 
ing machine,  and  requested  me  to  go  over  to  his  house  and  look  at 
it.  I  went  over  to  Robert  McCormick's,  and  he  got  the  machine 
out  of  the  malt-house  and  put  it  up  in  the  yard.  The  reaping- 
machine  was  constructed  of  small  circular  saws  eight  or  ten  inches 
in  diameter,  which  bent  the  grain  to  the  sickle.  It  was  caught  by 
bands,  carried  to  the  side  and  deposited  by  the  bands.  During  the 
harvest  of  1825  or  1826  this  machine  was  used  on  Robert  Mc- 
Cormick's farm.  But  the  great  objection  to  this  machine  was  that 
when  the  grain  was  dry  or  very  ripe  it  got  fastened  in  the  bands. 

After  this  harvest  Robert  McCormick  obtained  an  entire  sickle 
which  worked  by  a  crank.  Robert  McCormick  invented  and 
adopted  the  reel. 

I  am  prepared  to  declare  from  my  personal  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  that  Robert  McCormick  (father  of  C.  H.  and  L.  J.  Mc- 
Cormick) is  the  inventor  of  the  McCormick  Reaper.  Robert 
McCormick  had  repeated  conversations  with  me  about  his  inven- 
tion, and  I  know  that  he  is  entitled  to  the  credit  of  this  invention. 
He  might  have  patented  his  reaper  eight  or  ten  years  before  it 
was  patented.  He  then  gave  the  right  to  the  patent  to  C.  H.  Mc- 
Cormick, his  son. 

Given  under  my  hand  this  i8th  day  of  February,  1879. 

(Signed)  ROBERT  McCoRMiCK. 

Witnesses: 

S.    MCCORMICK. 

M.  S.  MCCORMICK. 


10 


Early  History  and  Invention  of  the  McCormick  Reaper. 


By  COL.  THOMAS  S.  PAXTON,  of  West  of  Fairficld,  Rockbridge  Co.,  Va.; 
Aged  77  Years. 


I  was  acquainted,  and  intimately  acquainted,  with  Robert 
McCormick,  and  knew  all  his  family  well.  I  knew  him  first  in 
1827  or  1828,  and  until  his  death.  He  was  not  a  communicative 
man.  He  always  kept  his  counsel  in  business  and  purpose  pretty 
much  to  himself,  although  at  times  he  would  speak  somewhat  of 
his  business  to  his  personal  friends. 

The  first  of  my  recollection  is,  although  1  think  I  heard  frequently 
before,  that  Robert  McCormick  was  inventing  a  reaper.  I  was 
working  for  Robert  McCormick.  -I  saw  Mr.  Robert  McCormick 
frequently  standing  over  the  machine  and  musing  and  studying. 
On  the  occasion  he  had  the  machine  in  the  yard.  He  was  standing 
studying  over  it,  drawing  down,  as  was  his  habit,  his  under  lip. 
Finally  he  called  me  to  him — the  machine  did  not  work  to  suit  him 
— and  asked  my  opinion  about  some  change  he  intended  making  in 
his  reaper  I  was  a  mill-wright,  and  working  in  the  yard  near  him. 
I  gave  him  my  advice  as  far  as  I  could,  and  then,  as  he  stood  there 
studying,  I  remarked  to  the  old  gentleman:  "  Mr.  McCormick,  this 
is  not  Cyrus's  invention;  it  is  yours,  ts  it  not?"  He  replied  at  once: 
"  Yes,  but  I  intend  to  give  Cyrus  the  benefit  of  it." 

I  have  no  doubt  whatever  myself  that  Robert  McCormick  was 
the  original  inventor  of  the  machine.  It  was  the  general  opinion 
of  the  community  around  and  about  Robert  McCormick's  that  he 
was  the  inventor;  and  this  was  justified  by  the  constant  and  unre- 
mitting labor  and  attention  Robert  McCormick  bestowed  on  the 
machine,  and  his  known  ingenuity  and  skill  in  work  and  in  inven- 
tion. He  invented  a  threshing  machine,  and  I  erected  one  of  them 
that  was  run  by  .water.  This  reaper,  invented  by  Robert  McCor- 
mick,. is  the  same  one  (improved)  that  is  now  being  manufactured 
by  Cyrus  H.  and  Leander  J.  McCormick  in  the  city  of  Chicago. 

In  witne.ss  whereof  I'  hereunto  affixed  my  name  September 
10,  1878.  (Signed)  Coi>.  THOMAS  S.  PAXTON. 

Witnesses: 

JOHN  H.  POTTER, 
P.  A.  PAXTON. 


Early  History  and  Invention  of  the  McCormick  Reaper. 


By  REV.  HORATIO  THOMPSON,  of  Timber  Ridge,  Rockbridge  Co.,  Va.; 
Aged  80  Years;  Occupation,  Minister  of  the  Gospel. 


I  was  acquainted  with  Robert  McCormick,  father  of  Cyrus  H. 
and  Leander  J.  McCormick,  from  1832  till  his  death. 

I  am  sure  I  never  heard  the  name  of  the  inventor  of  the  McCor- 
mick wheat  reaper  questioned  before  the  death  of  Robt.  McCormick. 
Robt.  McCormick  was  the  inventor  of  the  original  wheat  reaper. 
This  I  understood  more  than  40  years  ago.  I  saw  him  at  work  on 
the  machine  in  his  shops.  His  whole  soul  appeared  to  be  absorbed 
in  the  work  of  this  invention.  People  spoke  of  him  as  being 
engaged  in  a  foolish  undertaking.  All  persons  in  his  community, 
at  the  time  of  the  invention,  ascribed  it  to  Robt.  McCormick,  and 
no  other  name  in  those  days  was  associated  with  the  invention  than 
that  of  "  Robt.  McCormick."  I  heard  Robt.  McCormick  speak, 
himself,  of  the  invention  of  the  wheat  reaper,  and  he  told  me  that 
he  had  every  reason  to  believe  it  would  be  a  success  if  he  could  get 
it  arranged  to  suit  him. 

This  wheat  reaper  of  Robt.  McCormick's  is  the  same,  improved 
upon  by  C.  H.  and  L.  J.  McCormick,  and  now  manufactured  in 
Chicago. 

(He  also  states  that  he  is  well  acquainted  with  Col.  Thomas  S. 
Paxton,  of  west  of  Fairfield,  and  he  considers  him  a  "  gentleman  of 
high  character  and  sterling  integrity.") 

In  witness  whereof,  I  hereunto  set  my  hand,  this  pth  day  of  Sept., 
1878. 

(Signed)         HORATIO  THOMPSON,  D.  D. 
Witnesses: 

Mrs.  T.  N.  DAVIS, 
ELIZA  THOMPSON. 


Early  History  and  Invention  of  the  McCormick  Reaper, 


By  ZECHARIAH  MCCHESNEY,  of  Spring  Hill,  Virginia, 
Aged  82  Years. 


I  was  well  acquainted  with  Robert  McCormick  (father  of  Cyrus 
H.  and  Leander  J.  McCormick)  from  his  earliest  childhood.  I 
knew  all  his  family.  We  were  distantly  related. 

I  knew  that  Robert  McCormick  was  engaged  in  studying  and 
inventing  this  wheat  reaper  several  years  before  it  was  put  on  the 
market.  Cyrus  and  Leander  were  then  boys.  Some  persons  spoke 
of  Robert's  efforts  as  folly.  Others  spoke  of  his  ingenuity.  I  heard 
persons  say  that  in  making  his  experiments  with  his  reaper  he 
worked  it  in  the  night — to  avoid  observation,  I  suppose. 

I  am  satisfied  that  Robert  McCormick  was  the  original  inventor 
of  the  McCormick  Wheat  Reaper.  There  was  no  doubt  about  this 
at  the  time  he  was  engaged  in  inventing  it  and  at  the  time  it  was 
put  in  the  market.  I  never  heard,  during  the  lifetime  of  Robert 
McCormick,  any  other  name  associated  with  the  invention  than  that 
of  Robert  McCormick;  although  Cyrus,  his  son,  was  an  efficient 
aid  and  agent  for  his  father  after  the  invention  and  when  the 
machine  was  put  on  the  market,  in  making  sales  of  the  wheat 
reaper.  I  bought  one  of  the  first  reapers  from  Cyrus,  who  acted 
as  the  agent  for  his  father. 

I  cannot  now  give  the  year,  in  which  I  first  heard  of  Robert 
McCormick's  efforts  to  invent  the  reaper. 

This  invention  of  Robert  McCormick's  is  the  original  of  the  now 
improved  McCormick  Reaper  manufactured  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
by  Cyrus  and  Leander,  Robert's  sons. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  hereunto  affixed  my  name,  September  9, 
1878. 

•  (Signed)  ZECHARIAH  MCCHESNEY. 

Witnesses: 

B.  F.  COCHRANE. 
ADAM  MCCHESNEY. 


Early  History  of  the  McCormick  Reaper, 


BY  LEANDER  J.  MCCORMICK. 


The  first  I  ever  heard  about  my  father's  invention  was  about  a 
machine  which  he  was  said  to  have  built  about  the  year  1809  or 
1810.  He  afterwards  built  a  machine  which  was  stored,  during  my 
boyhood  (and  which  I  have  often  seen),  in  the  old  malt-house,  and 
it  was  said  to  have  been  built  about  1816,  it  had  stationary  cutters 
and  vertical  reels  and  a  platform;  was  supported  on  .two  wheels 
and  had  shafts  by  which  it  was  drawn. 

My  father  built  a  successful  reaping  machine  in  1831,  with  which 
he  cut  some  grain;  this  machine  did  good  work  under  favorable 
circumstances,  it  ran  on  one  main  driving  or  supporting  wheel;  had 
a  vibrating  sickle  with  a  platform  to  receive  the  cut  grain  until  a 
sufficient  amount  had  been  cut  to  form  a  bundle  and  it  was  then 
raked  off  and  out  of  the  way  of  the  horses  by  a  man  who  walked 
beside  the  machine,  it  had  a  reel  to  carry  the  grain  back  to  the 
sickle.  This  machine  was  substantially  the  same  £s  afterwards 
built  by  the  family  in  1844,  '45,  '46. 

In  the  summer  of  1845  I  conceived  the  idea  of  the  raker's  seat, 
as  afterwards  patented  by  my  brother  Cyrus,  and  which  was  used 
on  all  the  machines  built  from  the  time  I  invented  it,  until  the 
purchase  of  the  McClintock  Young  Self-Rake  patent  about  1868, 
which  performed  about  the  same  work  by  machinery  that  the  raker 
was  enabled  to  do  by  hand  by  the  use  of  my  invention. 

Immediately  after  I  invented  the  seat,  I  attached  it  to  the  reaper 
as  then  built  by  my  father  and  myself,  and  I  wrote  t'o  my  brother, 
Cyrus,  who  was  then  at  Brockport,  N.  Y.,  giving  him  a  full  descrip- 
tion, with  drawings,  etc.,  of  the  improvement.  I  afterwards  (about 
the  year  1868)  found  the  letter  which  I  had  written  him  and  which 
was  post-marked  "  Brockport,  N.  Y.,"  among  a  lot  of  old  papers 
when  I  was  visiting  the  old  home. 

The  invention  might  more  properly  be  called  a  "  raker's  stand," 
as  it  enabled  a  man  to  stand  on  the  rear  portion  of  the  machine, 
facing  backwards,  there  being  a  timber  attached  to  the  frame  of 
the  machine  extending  backwards  and  between  the  raker's  legs. 
(He  stood  astride.)  There  was  a  cross-board  attached  to  this 


M 


timber  for  him  to  lean  against  which  held  him  in  his  position  while 
he  holding  the  rake  in  both  hands  raked  the  grain  from  the  platform. 

I  further  wish  to  say  that  my  father  continued  to  work  on  his 
reaper  year  after  year,  from  the  time  I  was  a  small  boy  until  his 
death,  and  that  I  never  knew  or  heard  of  his  having  abandoned  the 
machine  or  having  lost  confidence  in  it;  as  proof  of  which  I  will 
state  that  we  built  quite  a  large  number  of  machines  for  sale  during 
the  summers  of  1844,  '45  and  '46,  I  had  a  one-third  interest  in  the 
machines  built  at  home  in  1846,  and  went  to  Cincinnati  to  superin- 
tend the  building  of  one  hundred  machines  in  1847  in  which  I  had 
a  one-third  interest. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  hereunto  affix  my  name. 

L.  J.    McCORMICK. 

CHICAGO,  August  ist,  1885. 


Early  History  of  the  McCormick  Reaper. 


BY  HENRIETTA  M.  MCCORMICK}  wife  of  Leander  J.  McCormick. 


I  was  married  October  22,  1845,  and  lived  in  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Robert  McCormick's  family  some  months  after  my  marriage.  I 
had  previously  gone  to  school  with  their  daughter  Amanda,  and 
became  acquainted  with  my  husband,  Leander  J.  McCormick.,  at 
her  wedding,  May  8,  1845.  I  was  one  of  her  bridesmaids. 

I  was  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Robert  McCormick's  family;  my 
father  having  also  been  well  acquainted  with  him.  I  always 
understood  him  to  have  been  the  inventor  of  the  reaper.  I  never 
heard  any  other  name  mentioned  as  having  had  anything  to  do 
with  its  invention. 

I  learned  for  the  first  time,  shortly  before  the  death  of  Mr.  Robert 
McCormick,  that  he  had  given  the  invention  to  Cyrus.  This  I  was 
surprised  and  chagrined  at,  as  I  had  expected  my  husband  to  share 
with  the  family  in  the  benefits  growing  out  of  it.  I  had  frequent 
talks  with  Mrs.  McCormick  and  the  family,  and  she  tried  to  recon- 
cile me  by  saying  that  Cyrus  had  promised  to  "  make  all  the  family 
rich  if  he  ever  made  anything  out  of  it." 

My  husband  told  me,  while  we  were  living  with  the  old  people 
at  that  time,  that  he  had  made  a  valuable  improvement  in  the  ma- 
chine, and  that  he  had  written  Cyrus  at  Brockport,  N.  Y.,  and 
described  it  to  him.  Some  twenty  years  afterwards  I  saw  and  read 
this  letter  with  descriptions  and  drawings  of  the  raker's  seat,  which 
he  had  written  to  Cyrus  at  Brockport,  N.  Y.,  before  I  was  married 
in  October,  1845.  My  husband  found  the  letter  among  a  lot  of 
Cyrus'  old  papers  which  had  been  left  scattered  around  at  Walnut 
Grove,  the  old  homestead.  The  letter  referred  to  was  afterwards 
burned  in  the  Chicago  fire. 

August  10, 1846,  immediately  after  Mr.  Robert  McCormick's  death, 
we  removed  to  the  South  River  Farm,  which  my  husband*  inherited 
from  him,  he  having  previously  given  it  to  Cyrus  and  taken  it  back 
on  account  of  having  had  to  pay  Cyrus'  losses  in  the  smelting  busi- 
ness, in  which -he  and  Cyrus  were  interested  with  a  man  named 
Black. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  hereunto  affix  my  name. 

CHICAGO,  August  i,  1885.  HENRIETTA  M.  MCCORMICK. 


Origin,  Progress  and  Improvement  of  the  McCormick  Reaper. 


AS  STATED  HY  C.  H.  McCoRMICK  IN  HIS  MEMORIAL  TO  CONGRESS 

ASKING  FOR   AN  EXTENSION  OK  HIS  PATENT 

OF  JUNE  21,  1834. 


"  In  the  summer  of  1831,  my  father  (Robert  McCormick,  who 
patented  a  hemp-breaking  machine,  and  who  died  on  the  4th  of 
July,  1846)  constructed  a  machine  for  cutting  gram  upon  a  prin- 
ciple entirely  different  from  mine,*  and  on  which  he  had  made  ex- 
periments yeais  before;  and  by  his  experiment  in  the  harvest  of 
1831  he  became  satisfied  that  it  would  not  answer  a  valuable  pur- 
pose, notwithstanding  it  cut  well  in  straight  wheat.  Very  soon 
after  my  father  had  abandoned  his  machine,  I  first  conceived  the 
idea  of  cutting  upon  the  principle  of  mine,  viz:  with  a  vibrating 
blade  operated  by  a  crank  and  the  gram  supported  at  the  edge 
while  cutting  by  means  of  fixed  pieces  of  wood  or  iron  projecting 
before  it.  (I  think  these  pieces  were  of  iron  in  1831,  but  if  not, 
iron  was  used  for  them  certainly  in  the  harvest  of  1832.)  A  tem- 
porary experimental  machine  was  immediate.ly  constructed,  and  the 
cutting  partially  tried  with  success,  in  cutting,  without  a  reel,  a 
little  wheat  left  standing  for  the  trial;  whereupon,  the  tnachine  was 
improved,  and  the  reel  which  I  had  in  the  meantime  discovered  ;f 
and  soon  afterwards  (the  same  harvest)  a  very  successful  experi- 
ment was  made  with  it  in  cutting  oats  in  the  field  of  Mr.  John 
Steele,  neighbor  to  my  father.  The  machine  at  the  time  of  this  ex- 
periment contained  all  the  essential  parts  that  were  embraced  in  the 
patent  of  June  2ist,  1834.  ^  na<^  tne  p&*tfertt*t  the  straight  sickle 
with  a  -vibrating  action  by  a  crank,  the  fingers,  or  stationary  sup- 
ports to  the  cutting,  at  the  edge  of  the  blade,  and  projecting  for- 
ward into  the  grain;  (the  double  and  counter  action  from  the  crank, 
as  patented,  was  abandoned  on  being  further  tested),  the  reel,  and 
the  general  arrangement  by  which  the  machine  was  (about)  bal- 
anced upon  two  -wheels,  perhaps  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  weight  be- 
ing thrown  upon  the  one  behind  the  draught,  thereby  attaching  the 

*  See  testimonial  of  VV.  S.  McCormick,  page  7. 
f  Discovered  does  not  necessarily  mean  invented. 


i8 

horses  in  front  and  at  one  side  without  the  use  of  a  separate  two- 
wheeled  cart,  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  running  of  the  ma- 
chine, and  at  the  same  time  causing  the  machine  (upon  its  two 
wheels)  to  accommodate  itself  to  the  irregularities  of  the  ground, 
which  construction  I  claim." 

He  further  states  in  the  same  memorial  that  he  contracted  with 
A.  C.  Brown,  of  Cincinnati,  to  build  100  Reapers  for  the  harvest 
of  1847;  "and  I  gave  my  brother  (L.  J.  McCormick)  a  one-third 
part  in  that  contract,  to  induce  him  to  attend  to  the  manufacture  at 
that  place,  which  he  did,"  etc. 

(Signed)  "  Very  respectfully, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"C.    H.    MCCORMICK." 


WALNUT  GROVE,  Feb.  17,  1848. 

The  undersigned,  mother  ajid  brothers  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick, 
do  hereby  state,  each  for  himself,  (and  herself)  that  during  the  har- 
vest of  1831,  said  C.  H.  McCormick  did  have  constructed  and  put 
into  operation  in  cutting  wheat  on  this  farm,  and  oats  on  the  farm  of 
Mr.  John  Steele,  (a  near  neighbor)  a  reaping  machine  for  which  a 
patent  was  granted  to  him  on  the  2ist  day  of  June,  1834.  When 
•used  in  cutting  the  oats  at  Mr.  Steele's  as  aforesaid,  this  machine, 
we  believe,*  was  essentially  the  same  in  principle  as  when  patented 
as  above;  that  is,  it  had  a  platform  for  receiving  and  carrying  the 
grain  until  a  sufficient  quantity  was  collected  for  a  sheaf,  more  or  less. 
The  cutting  was  done  by  a  straight  blade  having  a  sickle  or  serated 
edge,  placed  at  the  front  edge  of  the  platform,  and  which  received  a 
vibratory  action  from  a  crank;  and  the  grain  was  supported  at  the 
edge  of  the  blade  by  fixed  pieces  of  iron  (or  wood)  placed  about  two 
or  three  inches  apart,  projecting  before  the  edge  and  being  above 
and  below  it  so  as  to  support  the  grain  both  at  the  upper  and  under 
side  of  the  blade.  k  At  one  side  of,  and  attached  to,  the  platform,  a 

•*  These  memorials  were  probably  prepared  by  C.  H.  McCormick  himself.  (See 
John  Steele,  Jr.,  page  47,  and  Eliza  H.  Steele's  testimony,  page  48.)  It  will  be  seen 
that  they  did  not  say  that  the  machine  did  any  work  on  the  home  farm,  nor  did 
they  state  that  it  was  the  same  machine  that  cut  the  oats  on  Steele's  farm,  nor  did 
they  state  that  C.  H.  invented  either  of  them,  but  simply  that  he  had  a  machine 
constructed  for  the  harvest  of  1831,  which  he  put  in  operation  on  the  home  farm 
(which  might  have  been  done 'without  cutting  a  bushel  of  grain),  and  for  which  a 
patent  was  granted  him  in  1834.  (See  cut  of  this  machine,  page  20  ) 

He  then  describes  the  machine  which  cut  the  oats,  and  the  mother  and  brothers 
testify  that  they  believed  it  was  essentially  the  same  as  the  one  he  put  in  operation 
and  patented, -which  it  may  have  been  and  still  have  been  a  very  different  machine, 
as  he  himself  states  in  his  memorial  to  Congress  that  his  father  built  a  reaper  that 
year,  and  several  others  have  also  testified  to  the  same  effect,  and  that  was  probably 
the  machine  that  cut  the  oats  on  Steele's  farm.  _  (See  certificates  for  description  of 
Robert  McCormick's"  machine.) 


frame  was  erected  in  which  were  placed  one  main  driving  wheel, 
about  two  feet  in  diameter,  that  run  on  the  ground  and  supported 
that  side  of  the  machine,  and  other  cog  wheels,  operated  from  the 
axle  of  the  driving  wheel,  which  communicated  action  to  the  crank, 
which  (crank)  was  placed  in  a  line  with  the  blade  and  attached  by 
a  connecting  wooden  driver.  From  the  frame  that  supported  the 
wheels,  a  pair  of  shafts  were  extended  forward,  to  which  a  horse 
was  attached  that  pulled  the  machine,  walking  close  to  the  edge  of 
the  grain;  and  the  side  of  the  platform  extending  into  the  grain  was 
supported  by  a  small  wheel,  the  machine  being  about  balanced  on 
the  two  ground  wheels,  and  steadied  by  the  shafts  attached  to  the 
horse.  Above  the  blade  was  placed  the  reel,  which  was  revolved 
by  a  band  from  a  wheel  on  the  axle  of  the  driving  wheel,  which  reel 
gathered  the  grain  to  the  blade,  and  when  cut,  threw  it  straight  on 
the  platform. 

The  undersigned  do  further  state  that  said  C.  H.  McCormick  did 
make  great  efforts  from  time  to  time  to  introduce  said  machines  in- 
to general  use,  but  found  many  difficulties  to  contend  with,  which 
caused  much  delay  in  accomplishing  the  same.  And  they  furtner 
state  that  they  have  no  interest  in  the  patent  of  said  reaping  ma- 
chine. 

(Signed)  WM.  S.  McCoRMicx. 

L.  J.  MCCORMICK. 

MARY  MCCORMICK. 

Dr.  N.  M.  Hitt  states  in  a.  letter,  produced  by  Cyrus  H.  McCor- 
mick at  the  same  time  as  his  memorial  to  Congress,  that  "  during 
the  harvest  of  1831  whilst  boarding  at  the  house  of  Mr.  John  Steele, 
about  one  mile  from  the  farm  of  Mr.  Robert  McCormick  (de- 
ceased), father  of  Cyrus  H.,  I  had  noticed  that  a  machine  had  been 
constructed  by  the  latter  to  cut  wheat  ^or  other  small  grain),  and 
that  a  trial  of  it  could  be  seen  on  said  farm  on  that  day.  1  accord- 
ingly, as  well  as  Mr. 'and  Mrs.  Steele,  went  to  Mr.  McCormick's 
and  did,  on  that  day,  witness  probably  one  of  the  first  experiments 
made  by  the  operation  of  the  Virginia  Reaper.  This  experiment 
was  made  in  cutting  a  piece  of  wheat  without  the  reel.  Otherwise 
the  principles  of  the  machine,  though  imperfect,  were,  I  believe,  the 
same  as  afterwards  patented." 

Messrs.  John  Steele,  Jr.,  and  E.  Steele  corroborate  Dr.  N.  M. 
Hitt's  statement,  and  that  they  also  saw  it  operated  with  a  reel  in 
cutting  oats  on  our  farm  in  the  summer  of  1831. 

John  McCowan  states  in  a  communication  which  Cyrus  H.  Mc- 
Cormick presented  to  Congress,  at  the  same  time  with  his  other 
memorial,  under  date  of  December  31,  1847,  Rockbridge  County; 
Virginia:  "  I  reside  some  twelve  or  thirteen  miles  from  the  resi- 


20 

dence  of  William  McCormick,  son  of  Robert  McCormick  (de- 
ceased). During  the  harvest  of  1831,  Cyrus  H.,  son  of  Robert 
McCormick  (deceased),  applied  to  me  to  make  him  a  cutting  blade 
for  a  reaping  machine  which  he  was  then  constructing  to  be  oper- 
ated by  horse-power,  and  by  his  directions  I  did  accordingly  make 
one,  about  four  feet  long,  with  a  straight,  serrated  or  sickle  edge, 
with  a  hole  on  one  end  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  being  attached,  as  I 
was  told  and ,  afterwards  found  out  to  be  the  case,  to  a  crank  which 
gave  it  a  vibrating  action.  The  machine ^vvas  accordingly  put  in 
operation  that  harvest  as  I  was  informed,  but  did  not  see  it.  The 
present  residence  of  \Vm.  S.  McCormick  was  then  the  residence  of 
his  father  and  family."  * 

*  In  this,  McGowan  does  not  state  that  it  was  an  invention  of  Cyrus  H.  McCor- 
mick's,  but  that  he  simply  made  the  sickle  for  him  And  Robert  McCormick  was 
living  at  the  time,  and  there  was  no  reason  why  the  father  had  not  instructed  the  son 
to  order  the  sickle  to  be  made 


MCCORMICK'S  REAPER,  PATENTED  IN  1834. 


A.  Platform      B.  Tongue  to  which  the  horses  were  attached.     D.  Cross-bar  to 
which  the  horses'  names  were  attached.     L.  Divider      W.  Reel      T    Cutter 

(The  above  cut  is  taken  from  a  remonstrance  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New 
York  against  the  renewal  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  patent  of  June  21,  1834.) 


TO  THE  CONGRESS  J)F  THE  JJNITED,  STATES. 


REMONSTRANCE 


i 


Of  the  Citizens  of  Neiv  York,  against  the  rc.nei.val  of  Letters  Patent  grante 
H.  McCoRMiCK,  'June  21,  1834,  for  imfiovemettts  in  the  Heaping  Machine. 

;    _^.  ""'*"    • 

The  subscribers,  citizens*  of  jhe^StaU^of^New  ,  York,  beg  leave 
respectfully  to  represent: 

That  they  have  been  informed  that  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  has 
made  application  to  your  honorable  body,  for  a  special  act  of  Con- 
gress, renewing  the  Letters  Patent  granted  to  him  by  the  United 
States,  on  the  2ist  day  of  June,  1834,  f°r  improvements  in  Reaping 
Machines,  claimed  to  have  been  invented  by  him. 

The  undersigned,  being  satisfied  that  neither  justice  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick  nor  the  public  interest  requires,  that  that  patent  should  be 
renewed,  beg  leave,  humbly  but  earnestly,  to  remonstrate  against  it; 
and  they  do  so,  from  a  full  conviction, 

First,  That  there  is  nothing  described  in  that  patent  which  is  use- 
ful, which  was  not  invented  and  used  by  others,  prior  to  any  in- 
vention or  use  of  the  same  by  Mr.  McCormick,  and, 

Second,  That  if  he  was  really  the  original  and  first  inventor  of 
any  material  and  valuable  part  of  what  he  claims,  he  has  been  amply 
rewarded  during  the  existence  of  his  patent. 

That  there  are  other  men  in  our  country  who  have  contributed 
far  more  to  the  perfecting  of  the  reaping  machine,  and  rendering  it 
what  it  has  become,  a  necessary  implement  of  agriculture,  than  Mr. 
McCormick  has  done,  and  who  have  received  far  less  reward.  And 
it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  success  of  Mr.  McCormick's  ma- 
chine is  not  entirely  owing  to  his  use  of  their  inventions. 

That  we  do  not  make  this  remonstrance  without  sufficient  grounds 
for  doing  so,  we  beg.  leave  to  submit  for  the  careful  consideration  of 
your  honorable  body,  a  faithful  account  of  the  efforts  not  only  of 
Mr.  McCormick,  but  of  those  who  preceded  him  in  the  invention 
and  construction  of  reaping  machines,  and 

First,  We  invite  attention  to  the  patent  which  is  sought  to  be  re- 
newed. The  claims  of  that  patent  are  in  the  following  words,  \f\z: 
"  My  claim  is  for  the  arrangement  of  the  several  parts  so  as  to  con- 
"  stitute  the  above  described,  machine.  And  I  particularly  claim  the 
"  method  of  cutting  by  means  of  a  vibrating  blade,  operated  by  a 
"  crank,  having  the  edge  either  smooth  or  with  teeth,  either  with 
"  stationary  wires  or  pieces  above  and  below,  and  projecting  before 


22 

M  it  for  the  purpose  of  staying  or  supporting  the  grain  whilst  cutting, 
"  or  using  a  double  crank  and  another  blade  or  vibrating  bar,  as 
"  above  described,  having  projections  before  the  blade  or  cutter, 
"  on  the  upper  side,  both  working  in  contrary  directions,  thereby 
"  lessening  the  friction  and  liability  to  wear,,  by  dividing  the  motion 
"  necessary  for  one  between  the  two,  and  improving  the  principle  of 
"  cutting  by  gathering  and  holding  the  grain  to  the  cutter,  the  pro- 
jections standing  at  a  proper  angle  to  said  cutter;  also  the  method  of 
"  securing  them." 

"  I  also  claim  the  method  of  gathering  and  bringing  the  grain  back 
"to  the  cutter,  and  delivering  it  on  the  apron  or  platform,  by  means 
"  of  a  reel,  as  described  above,  movable  .to  any  height,  required  to 
"  suit  the  grain,  and  the  platform  to  hold  the  grain  until  a  sufficient 
"  quantity  shall  have  been  collected  for  a  sheaf,  more  or  less;  like- 
"  wise  the  mode  of  changing  the  machine  for  cutting  either  high  or 
"  low,  as  described  above;  also  the  method  of  dividing  and  keeping 
"  separate  the  grain  to  be  cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing,  and  the 
"method  of  attaching  the  tongue,  when  behind,  to  the  breast  of  the 
"  horse,  to  enable  him  to  guide  the  machine  with  accuracy." 

Judging  from  these  claims,  in  the  absence  of  a  knowledge  of  prior 
inventions,  we  should  be  led  to  conclude  that  Mr.  McCormick  was 
the  first  inventor  of  a  reaping  machine.  Here  is  claimed  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  several  parts  so  as  to  constitute  said  machine;  and 
particular  claim  is  made  to  cutting  grain  by  means  of  a  vibrating 
blade  operated  by  a  crank,  having  the  edge  either  smooth  or  with 
teeth;  also  to  the  reel  for  gathering  the  grain;  and  to  the  platform 
to  hold  the  grain;  and  to  the  method  of  dividing  the  grain  to  be  cut 
from  that  to  be  left  standing,  by  means  of  a  simple  point  projecting 
in  front  of  the  cutter  for  that  purpose. 

But  it  is  important  to  inquire  whether  he  was  really  the  first  and 
original  inventor  of  the  several  parts  of  the  reaping  machine  here 
claimed.  To  determine  this,  it  becomes  necessary  to  examine  the 
history  of  reaper  inventions  and  ascertain  what  had  been  invented 
prior  to  this  alleged  invention  of  Mr.  McCormick. 

The  idea  of  cutting  grain  by  machinery  propelled  by  animal 
power,  is  of  quite  ancient  origin.  Machines  for  this  purpose  are  said 
to  have  been  known  to  the  Romans.  Both  Pliny  and  Palladius 
mention  such  a  machine  used  in  the  plains  of  Gaul,  with  which  the 
latter  says  they  could,  with  one  ox,  cut  large  fields  of  grain  in  a  day. 

This  machine  as  described  was  very  simple  in  its  construction.  It 
consisted  of  a  box  placed  upon  two  small  wheels  like  a  cart,  with 
the  cutters  fastened  in  the  front  end.  The  cutters  are  imperfectly 
described.  It  was  designed  only  to  take  the  heads  of  the  grain,  and 
was  raised  and  lowered  to  suit  the  height  of  grain.  Two  short 
shafts  were  attached  to  the  back  end  of  the  machine,  to  which  an 


23 

ox  was  yoked  with  his  head  towards  the  machine,  and  pushed  it  in 
front  of  hini.  As  the  machine  was  pushed  through  the  grain,  the 
heads  were  cut  oft"  and  fell  into  the  box  until  it  was  filled,  then  it 
was  emptied,  and  the  process  repeated. 

The  first  attempts  at  reaping  machines  in  modern  times,  so  far  as 
we  have  been  enabled  to  learn,  were  made  early  in  the  present  cent- 
ury, chiefly  in  Scotland.  In  Loudon's  Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture, 
we  have  an  account  of  the  doings  of  six  different  individuals  who 
gave  their  attention  to  this  department  of  invention.  < 

The  first  was  a  Mr.  Boyce.  "  His  machine  was  placed  in  a  two 
wheel  carriage,  somewhat  resembling  a  common  cart,  but-lhe  wheels 
were  fixed  upon  the  axle  and  the  axle  revolved  along  with  them.  A 
cog  wheel  within  the  carriage  turned  a  smaller  one  at  the  upper  end 
of  an  inclined  axis,  and  at  the  lower  end  of  this  was  a  large  wheel 
which  gave  a  rapid  motion  to  a  pinion  fixed  upon  a  vertical  axis 
in  the  front  part  of  the  carriage,  the  vertical  spindle  extended  to 
within  a  few  inches  of  the  ground,  and  had  there  a  number  of 
scythes  fixed  upon  it  horizontally."*  The  wheels  rolling  upon  the 
ground  as  the  machine  was  wheeled  along  gave  the  scythes  a  rapid' 
rotary  motion." 

An  improvement  was  made'upori  this  machine  by  Plucknet,  which 
consisted  in  substituting  for  the^cythes  a  circular  cutter  with  a 
sickle  edge.  A  further  improvement  was  made  by  Gladstone,  of 
Castle  Douglas,  which  consisted  in  instituting  a  circular  table  with 
strong  wooden  teeth  notched  below  all  around,  which  was  fixed 
immediately  over  the  cutter,  and  .parallel  to  it.  The  use  of  these 
teeth  was  to  collect  the  grain  and  retain  it  until  it  Was  cut.  The 
grain  when  cut,  was  received  upon  this  table,  and  when  a  sufficient 
quantity  was  collected,  taken  off^by  a  rake  or  sweeper  and -laid  upon 
the  ground  beneath  the  machine  in  separate  parcels. 

"Salmon  of  Waburn,  made  the.  next  attempt."  He  constructed 
his  machine  upon  a  totally  different  principle;  it  cut  the  grain  by 
means  of  shears,  and  it  was  provided  with  an  apparatus  for  laying 
the  grain  in  parcels  as  it  was  cut? 

The  next  machine  was  constructed  by  Smith,  of ,  the  Deanston 
Cotton  Works,  Perthshire.  Smith's  machine,  in  itsx  general  prin- 
ciple and  arrangements  resembled  Boyce's,  and  Plucknet's  and 
Gladstone's.  The  team  wac  attached  behind  the  machine  and  labored 
with  their  heads  towards  it.  The  cutter  was  circular  and  revolved 
horizontally,  and  over  it  was  a\  drum  that  revolved  with  it,  that 
carried  the  grain  as  it  was  cut  to  the  side  of  the  machine  and  threw 
it  off  in  regular  rows.  The  first  trial  of  this  machine  was  in  loll. 
Mr.  Smith  continued  his  experiments  through  1812,  1813,  1814,  and 
1815,  and  it  is  said  the  last  year  with  much  success. 

The  next  and  more  important  inventor  in  this  department,  was 


24 

the  Rev.  Patrick  Bell,  of  Scotland.  A  full  and  minute  description 
of  this  machine,  with  plates  nicely  lettered,  clearly  illustrating  it,  is 
contained  in  Loudon's  Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture,  pages  422  to 
427  inclusive;  which  description  ,.vas  published  in  that  work  as 
early  as  1831,  and  has  been  extant  in  this  country  since  that  time. 

BELL'S  REAPING  MACHING  PUT  IN  OPERATION  IN  1828. 


A.     Apron  which  receives  the  grain 
attached      W      Reel      T     Cutter 


Tongue  to  which  the  horses  were 


The  Reaping  machines  in  use  at  the  present  day  bear  considerable. 
resemblance  to  this  machine.  The  frame  work  is  suspended  on  two 
wheels,  of  three  and  a  half  feet  in  diameter,  the  axle  of  which  re- 
volves with  the  wheels.  The  front  end  of  the  machine  rests  upon 
two  small  wheels,  placed  one  on  each  side,  near  the  cutters.  It  is 
provided  with  two  other  small  wheels  under  the  front  part  of  the 
machine  on  a  short  axle  which  is  attached  to  the  machine  at  its 
centre,  midway  between  the  wheels,  by  means  of  a  bolt  on  which  it 
turns,  that  it  may  be  shifted  angling  either  way  to  the  machine,  by 
a  lever  controlled  by  the  operator  for  the  purpose  of  guiding  and 
turning  the  machine.  When  the  machine  is  to  be  turned  around, 
the  front  end  is  raised  and  rests  upon  these  wheels.  The  team  is 
attached  to  the  rear  part  of  the  machine,  with  their  heads  towards 
it.  The  grain  is  gathered  up  to  the  cutters  by  means  of  a  reel,  made 
adjustable  back  and  forth,  or  raised  and  lowered  to  suit  the  height 
of  the  grain.  The  cutters  are  shears,  the  under  blades  of  which 
are  bolted  fast  to  an  iron  bar  that  extends  across  the  front  end  of 


.25 

the  machine.  \ The  upper  blades  vibrate  over  them,  turning  on  the 
bolts  that  bolt  them  to  the  iron  bar.  \These*  upper  blades  extend 
back  from  the  bolts,  or  fulcrums,  and  are  connected  by  a  vibrating 
bar  which  is  attached  to  a  crank  put  in  motion  by  gearing  connect- 
ing it  with  the  large  driving  wheels.  The  grain  when  cut  was 
thrown  back  by  the  reel  upon  a  revolving  apron  by  which  it  was 
carried  and  dropped  off  at  the  side  of  the  machine  in  a  continuous 
swath.  Public  trials  of  this  machine  were  had  in  1828  and  1829. 
In  1828  it  was  tried  at  Powrie,  in  the  county  of  Forfar,  before  be- 
tween forty  and  fifty  landed  proprietors  and  practical  agricultural- 
ists, who  signed  a  declaration,  stating  that  the  machine  cut  down  a 
breadth  of  five  feet  at  once,  was  moved  by  one  horse,  and  attended 
by  from  six  to  eight  persons  to  tie  up  the  grain,  and  that  the  field 
was  reapt  by  this  force  at  the  rate  of  an  imperial  acre  per  hour.  In 
September,  1829,  the  machine  was  tried  at  Monkic,  in  Forfarshire, 
in  the  presence  of  a  still  greater  number  of  persons,  who  attest  that 
it  cut  in  half  -<\n  hour  nearly  half  an  English  acre  of  a  very  heavy 
crop  of  oats,  which  were  lodged,  thrown  about  by  the  wind,  and 
exceedingly  difficult  to  harvest.  ,  It  was  tried  in  a  number  of  other 
places  in  Forfarshire,  Perthshire  and  Fifeshire,  and  the  general  con- 
viction appears  to  be,  says  the  author,  "  that  it  will  soon  come  into 
as  general  use  among  farmers  as  the  threshing  machine." 

Soon  after  the  trial  and  notice  of  Bell's  machine,  several  indi- 
viduals in  different  parts  of  this  country  gave  attention,  nearly  sim- 
ultaneously, to  getting  up  reaping  machines. 

Thomas  D.  Burrall,  Esq.,  of  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  constructed  one  in 
1832  or  1833,  professedly  after  Bell's  description,  with  slight  modi- 
fications/ 

William  and  Thomas  Schneby,  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  took 
out  a  patent  for  improvements  in  reaping  machines,  the  22d  of 
August,  1833.  „  Their  machine  had  a  reel  for  gathering  the  grain, 
constructed  however,  somewhat  unlike  Bell's.  v  Their  cutters  were 
essentially  the  same  as  Bell's,  except  as  to  the  manner  of  communi- 
cating motion  to  them.  '  The  grain  when  cut,,  was  thrown  back  by 
the  reel  upon  a  revolving  apron,  by  which  it  was  carried  and 
dropped  at  the  side  of  the  machine  in  grips  or  gavels.  On  the  trial 
of  this  machine  the  revolving  apron  was  found  to  be  impracticable 
o  failed  to  perform  its  office,  and  the  grain  was  raked  off  by  a  man 
riding  upon  the  machine.  \. These  men,  for  want  of  means,  were 
obliged  to  discontinue  their  experiments,  though  their^machine  was 
used  with  very  good  success  for  two  or  three  years. 

Abram  Randall,  of  Oneida  county,  N.  Y.,  was  among  the 'early 
inventors  in  this  department,  in  this  country/  He  put  his  machine 
into  operation  in  the  harvest  of  .1833."' 


26 
RANDALL  S  REAPER,  AS  USED  IN  1833, 


A.  Platform  which  receives  the  cut  grain.     B.  Tongue  to  which  the  horses  were 
ached.     L.   Divider.     T.  Cutters.     W.  Re*d. 


attached. 

This  machine  exhibited  great  ingenuity  and  judgment  in  its  con- 
struction. The  frame  that  contained  the  gearing  was  suspended 
between  two  wheels  of  two  and  a  half  feet  diameter,  whose  axle 
revolved  and  from  which  motion  was  communicated  to  the  reel  and 
cutters.  The  platform  for  receiving  the  grain  was  attached  to  the 
rear  end  of  this  frame,  and  extended  out  one  side  a  distance  equal 
to  the  width  of  the  swath  to  be  cut  by  the  machine.  The  cutters 
which  were  similar  to  Bell's,  were  attached  to  the  front  edge  of  the 
platform,  which  was  just  in  rear  of  the  wheels.  The  team  was 
attached  in  front  of  the  machine,  and  traveled  forward  of  the  driving 
wheels.  The  grain  was  gathered  up  to  the  cutters,  and  when  cut 
thrown  back  upon  the  platform  by  means  of  a  reel  placed  (the 
centre  of  it)  a  little  in  front  of  the  cutters,  and  made  adjustable  to 
any  height  desired,  which  was  put  in 'motion  by  a  belt  connecting 
it  with  the  axle  of,  the  main  driving  wheel,  in  the  same  manner  that 
the  reels  in  all  the  various  machines  are  moved.  For  the  purpose 
of  separating  the  grain  to  be  cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing,  a 
point  on  the  side  of  the  machine  that  run  in  the  grain  was  made  to 
project  in  front  of  the  cutter,  which  projection  was  broad  at  the 
cutters,  leaning  the  grain  inwards  and  outwards.  Upon  this  pro- 
jection was  placed  a  broad  board  edgewise,  up  and  down,  sloping 
from  back  of  the  cutters  down  to  the  point  in  front,  nearly  up  to 
which  came  the  ends  of  the  arms  of  the  reel  as  they  passed  over 
the  cutters.  As  at  first  constructed,  the  grain  was  raked  from  this 
machine  by  a  man,  who  rode  upon  the  machine  immediately  in  rear 


27 

of  the  driving  wheels  at  the  side  of  the  cutters,  and  nearly  in  range 
with  them,  with  his  back  towards  the  team,  and  raked  the  grain  off 
at  the  side  of  the  platform.  Mr.  Randall  afterwards  made  some 
experiments  with  a  self-raker. 

This  appears  to  have  been  the  most  practical  machine  of  which  we 
have  spoken,  and  was  successful  and.  satisfactory  in  its  operations. 

Among  the  early  reaper  inventors  of  this  country,  Mr.  Obed 
Hussey,  now  of  Baltimore,  stood  for  many  years  deservedly  the 
most  prominent,  and  he  has  doubiless  by  his  genius  and  indefati- 
gable exertions  (although  in  a  modest  way)  contributed  more  to 
the  advancement  of  this  invention  than  any  other  man.  He  first 
tested  his  machine  in  1833,  and  took  out  a  patent  for  it  the  3ist  of 
December,  of  that  year.  . 

HUSSEY'S  REAPER,  PATENTED  IN   1833. 


A.  Platform  which  receives  the  grain.     B.   Tongue  to  which  the  horses  are 
attached 


28 

He  first  constructed  his  machine  with  a  reel  to  gather  the  grain 
up  to  the  cutters,  and  throw  it  upon  the  platform;  but  on  trial,  with 
his  cutter^  he  thought  it  unnecessary  and  only  an  incumbrance,  and, 
therefore,  threw  it  aside  and  has  never  used  it  since.  The  main 
frame-work  containing  the  gearing  was  suspended  on  two  wheels 
about  three  feet  four  inches  in  diameter.  The  platform  was  attached 
to  tWe  rear  of  this  frame,  and  extended  out  one  side  of  it,  say  six 
feet.  The  team  was  attached  to  the  front  end  of  the  frame,  and 
traveled  at  the  side  of  the  standing  grain,  as  in  Randall's  machine. 
The  cutting  apparatus  was  pretty  much  the -same  as  now.  used  ia 
Hussey's  machine.  The  knife  is  constructed  of  steel  plates,  riveted 
to  a  flat  bar  of  iron.  These  plates  are  three  inches  broad  at  the 
end  where  they  are  riveted  to  the  bar,  and  four  and  a  half  inches 
long,  projecting  jn  front,  and  tapering  nearly  to  a  point,  forming 
what  is  described  as  a  saw  with  .very  coarse  teeth,  which  are  sharp 
on  both  edges.  This  cutter  is  supported  on  what  he  terms  guards, 
which,  are  attached  to  the  front  edge  of  the  platform  or  cutter-bar 
(as  termed  by  Hussey),  one  every  three  inches  the  whole  width  of 
the  machine,  projecting  horizontally  in  front  about  six  or  eight 
inches.  These  guards  have  long  slots  through  them  horizontally 
through  which  the  cutter  vibrates,  and  thus  form  a  support  for  the 
grain  whilst  it  is  cut,  and  protect  the  cutter  from  liability  to  injury 
from  large  stones  and  other  obstructions.  The  cutter  is  attached 
by  means  of  a  pitman  rod-  to  a  crank,  which  is  put  in  motion  by 
gearing  connecting  with  one  or  both  of  the  ground  wheels  as  may 
be  desired,  according  to  circumstances,  which  gives  to  the  cutter  as 
the  machine  advances,  a  quick  vibrating  motion;  and  each  point  of 
the  cutter  vibrates  from  the  centre  of  one  guard,  through  the  space 
between,  to  the  centre  of  the  next,  thus  cutting  equally  both  ways. 
As  the  machine  advances,  the  grain  is  readily  cut,  and  the  butts  are 
carried  along  with  the  machine  which  causes  the  tops  to  fall  back 
upon  the  platform  without  the  aid  of  the  reel.  The  grain  to  be  cut 
was  separated  from  that  to  be  left  s'  anding  by  means  of  a  point 
projecting  in  front  of  the  cutter,  in  the  form  of  a  wedge,  bearing  the 
grain  both  inwards  and  outwards,  with  a  board  set  edgewise  upon 
it,  sloping  downwards.,  to  a  point  in  front.  The  grain  was.  raked 
from  the  machine  by  a  man  riding  upon  it,  in  rear  of  the  frame,  at 
the  side  of  the  cutter,  nearly  in  range  with  the  guards,  with  his 
back  towards  the  team,  'sometimes  at  the  side  and  sometimes  be- 
hind the  platform.  Soon  after  this  date  Mr.  Hussey  changed  the 
construction  of  his  machine  somewhat,  used  one  large  ground  wheel 
instead  of  two,  placed  the  platform  alongside  the  frame,  and  placed 
his  raker  on  a  seat  by  the  side  of  the  large  ground  wheel,  facing 
the  team,  and  raked  the  grain  off  in  rear  of  the  platform. 

This  was  for  many  years  doubtless  the   most  practical  reaping 


29 

machine  known,  and,  with  the  improvements  that  have  been  made 
upon  it,  from  time  to  time,. it  is  now  preferred  to  any  other  in  many 
wheat  growing  sections  of  the  country. 

The  cases  here  cited  show  the  progress  that  had  been  made  in 
this  invention,  so  far  as  we  have  knowledge  of  it,  up  to  the  time 
when  we  first  hear  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  in  connection  with  it. 

Mr.  McCormick's  first  patent  bears  date  the  2ist  day  of  June, 
1834;  l^e  specification  is  dated  the  ipth,  two  days  previous.  Now, 
by  comparing  his  machine,  as  he  presented  it  to  the  patent  office  at 
that  time,  with  the  inventions  then  publicly  known  and  in  use,  as 
we  have  shown,  we  are  enabled  to  determine  how  much  he  con- 
tributed to  the  progress  of  this  invention. 


MCCORMICK'S  REAPER,  PATENTED  IN  1834. 


A.  Platform.     B.  Tongue  to  which  the  horses  were  attached 
which  the  horses'  hames  were  attached.     L.  Divider.     \V.  Reel 


D    Cross-bar  to 
T    Cutter 


This  machine  was  supported  on  two  wheels,  one  of  about  two 
feet  diameter  at  the  right  side,  a  little  in  front  of  the  cutter;  the 
other  fifteen  inches  in  diameter,  placed  on  the  left  side  near  the 
cutter.  The  team  was  attached  to  the  rear  part  of  the  machine, 
and  worked  with  their  heads  towards  it,  as  in  Bell's  machine  and 
the  other  foreign  inventions.  The  greater  part  of  the  weight  being 
in  rear  of  the  wheels,  the  rear  part  was  borne  by  the  horses  by 
means  of  a  pole  passing  across  their  backs  and  resting  on  pad 
saddles;  from  this  pole  a  chain  passed  to -the  tongue  below,  and  sus- 
pended it  to  the  desired  height.  The  platform  is  described  as  being 
about  six  feet  broad.  Bell's  machine  is  described  as  just  six  feet 
broad.  A  reel  was  attached  for  gathering  the  grain,  constructed 
and  operated  similarly  to  Bell's.  But  instead  of  this  reel  being  sup- 
ported by  bearings  extending  from  the  rear  part  of  the  machine, 


30 

horizontally,  as  in  Bell's  machine,  a  reel  post  was  placed  each  side 
of  the  machine,  perpendicularly,  in  front  of  the  cutter  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  cutter  was  a  long  steel  blade  extending  the  width  of  the 
platform,  with  a  straight  sickle  edge,  with  the  sickle  teeth  angling 
towards  the  right  -side  of  the  machine.  Above  this  sickle  was 
placed  another  blade,  and  instead  ot  the  fine  sickle  teeth  for  cutting 
the  grain,  it  had  teeth  an  inch  and  a  half  long,  and  the  same  distance 
apart,  which  angled  towards  the  left  side  of  the  machine,  the  oppo- 
site way  from  the  angle  of  the  sickle  teeth.  These  long  teeth  were 
for  holding  the  grain  whilst  it  was  cut.  These  blades  were  attached 
to  a  double  crank  on  the  same  shaft  opposite  to  each  other,  which 
gave  the  blades,  when  vibrating,  an  opposite  motion.  The  sickle 
cut  only  when  it  moved  to  the  right.  This  cutting  apparatus  was 
similar  in  principle  to  Plucknett's  (page  3),  with  the  teeth  added  by 
Gladstone,  except  that  was  circular,  and  revolved  and  cut  all  the 
time;  this  is  straight  and  vibrates  and  cuts  only  hilf  the  time.  The 
grain  to  be  cut  was  separated  from  that  to  be  left  standing,  by  a 
projection  on  the  left  side  of  the  machine  (the  side  that  run  in  the 
grain),  which  extends  in  front  of  the  eutler  some  six  feet,  if  we  get 
a  correct  idea  from  the  specification.  The  grain,  when  cut,  fell 
upon  the  platform,  and  when  a  sufficient  quantity  had  accumulated 
for  a  sheaf,  was  raked  oft"  at  the  side  of  the  platform  by  a  man  who 
walked  at  the  side  of  the  machine.  Motion  was  communicated  to 
the  crank  that  gave  motion  to  the  sickle  by  gearing  that  connected 
it  with  the  large  ground  wheel. 

We  will  not  stop  to  enquire  how  far  this  machine  was  original 
with  Mr.  McCormick,  and  how  far  it  was  taken  from  prior  inven- 
tions. But  he  is  presumed  to  have  had -knowledge  of  what  had 
been  then  published  to  the  world  at  the  time  when  this  machine  was 
got  up;  the  country  from  which  Mr.  McCormick  descended;  the 
resemblance  in  the  prominent  features  of  the  machines,  and  the  sim- 
ilarity in  the  language  in  which  both  are  described,  are  all  circum- 
stances that  strongly  favor  the  supposition  that  he  at  least  had 
knowledge  of  Bell's  machine,  which  was  in  use,  as  we  have  shown, 
in  1828.  But  we  -would  ask,  was  this  a  -practical  reaping  machine? 
Was  it  practical  to  run  this  machine  on  ordinary  fields  of  grain, 
resting  on  two  small  wheels  in  front,  one  two  feet,  the  other  fifteen 
inches  in  diameter,  the  rear  end  resting  on  a  pole  across  the  horses' 
backs,  and  the  horses  pushing  the  machine  in  front  of  them?  Was 
it  -practical  to  cut  the  grain  with  a  vibrating  blade  cutting  only  one 
way,  thereby  losing  half  the  motion?  It  might  succeed  where  the 
grain  was  very  dry  and  ripe,  and  free  from  grass;  but  was  it  prac- 
ticable under  ordinary  circumstances?  Or  was  it  practicable  to  use 
a  point  projecting  six  feet  in  front  of  the  cutter  with  a  brace  raising 
from  the  point  backwards,  at  an  angle  of  sixty  degrees,  to  separate 


31 

the  grain?  Would  it  separate  the  grain  where  it  required  any  sep- 
arating? These  questions  are  readily  answered  in  the  nega- 
ative  by  those  who  have  had  practical  experience  in  the 
use  of  reaping  machines,  and  they  are  very  distinctly  answered 
in  the  sequel.  And  in  any  view  we  can  take  of  it,  was  Mr. 
McCormick  entitled  to  hold  under  patent  from  the  Govern- 
ment, the  exclusive  right  of  making,  vending  and  using  the 
several  parts  of  the  reaping  machine  claimed  in  his  patent  .of 
1834?  Cutting  grain  by  means  of  a  vibrating  blade  operated  by 
a  crank,  having  the  edge  either  smooth  or  with  teeth;  the  reel  for 
gathering  the  grain;  the  platform  for  holding  the  grain,  and  a 
simple  point  projecting  in  front  of  the  cutter  for  separating  the  grain 
to  be  cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing.  Parts,  without  using  some 
of  which,  a  practical  reaper  cannot  be  made,  and  having  held  them 
by  patent  fourteen  years,  is  he  entitled  to  hold  them  for  another 
term  of  years  by  special  act  of  Congress? 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  report  made  in  1848,  by  Professor 
Page,  then  one  of  the  examiners  in  the  patent  office,  and  to  whom, 
as  we  understand,  was  referred  the  application  of  Mr.  McCormick 
to  the  commissioner  of  patents  for  an  extension  of  his  patent  of 
1834,  which  he  now  asks  to  have  extended  by  Congress. 

No  one  will  be  surprised  that  after  the  making  of  that  report  by 
the  examiner,  the  application  of  Mr.  McCormick  for  an  extension 
was  denied  by  the  commissioner  of  patents.  Although  it  is  obvious 
from  what  we  have  shown  above  that  the  report  contained  by  no 
means  all,  or  even  the  strongest  evidence  which  might  have  been 
furnished,  against  the  originality  of  Mr.  McCormick's  invention. 
The  probability  doubtless  is  that  the  examiner  having  discovered 
enough  in  the  line  of  prior  inventions  to  dispose  of  Mr.  McCormick's 
claims,  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  pursue  the  inquiry  further. 

PATENT  OFFICE,  January  22,  1848. 

SIR:  In  compliance  with  your  requisition,  I  have  examined  the 
patent  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick,  dated  3ist  June,  1834,  anc^  found 
that  the  principal  features  embraced  in  said  patent,  viz.,  the  cutting- 
knife  and  mode  of  operating  it,  the  fingers  to  guide  the  grain  and 
the  revolving  rack  for  gathering  the  grain,  were  not  new  at  the  time 
of  granting  said  letters  patent. 

The  knife-fingers  and  general  arrangements  and  operation  of  the 
cutting  apparatus,  are  found  in  the  reaping  machine  of  O.  Hussey, 
patented  315!  December,  1833. 

The  revolving  rack  presents  novelty 'chiefly  in  form,  as  its  opera- 
tion is  similar  to  the  revolving  frame  of  James  Ten  Eyck,  patented 
2d  November,  1825. 

Respectfully  submitted.  CHAS.  G.  PAGE,  Examiner. 


32 

Hon.  Edmund  Burke,  Corner  of  Patents.^ 

In  view  of  the  facts  set  forth,  some  will  inquire,  why  "did  the 
patent  office  grant  such  claims  under  these  circumstances?  <.  The 
answer  to  which  is,  that  prior  to  1836  the  patent  office  made  no  ex- 
amination as  to  the  novelty  conventions  claimed.  .  Applicants  made 
oath  to  their  inventions,  and  a  patent  issued  as  a  matter  of  course. 
But  it  is  a  little  remarkable  that  Mr.  McCormick  should  have  made 
such  claims,  and  still  more  remarkable  that,  after  eighteen  years 
have  elapsed,  he  should  petition  Congress  to  renew  that  patent. 

The  inquiry  is  worthy  of  consideration,  who  was  the  first  in  this 
country. to  construct  and  introduce  into  practical  and  general  use,  a 
reaping  machine? 

Mr.  Hussey,  as  we  have  said,  made  the  first  trial  of  his  machine 
in  1833.  He  manufactured  four  machines  for  the  harvest  of  1834, 
and  twelve  or  fourteen  for  the  harvest  of  1835,  a"d  he  had,  at  this 
time,  introduced  them  into  five  of  the  wheat  growing  states/ and 
has  built  more  or  less  machines  every  year  since.  :  He  established 
the  business  in  Baltimore  in  1839,  built  sixteen  machines  that  year, 
and  has  ever  since  continued  to  do  a  large  business  in  the  manufac- 
ture and  sale  of  his  machines. 

These  early  operations  of  Mr.  Hussey,  when"  we  "consider  the 
prejudices  then  existing  against  reaping  machines,  and  the  small 
portion  of  the  grain  growing  regions  of  the  country  that  was  then 
adapted  to  the  use  of  them,  speak  well  for  the  success  of  his 
machine,  and  for  his  exertions  in  introducing  it. 

Of  Mr.  McCormick's  early  operations  we  are  not  so  particularly 
informed.  In  an  article  published  by  him, Bunder  date  March  I, 
1845,  speaking  of  his  reaper  operations,  he  says  "  he  did  not,  until 
last  harvest,  go  out  of  his  native  state  (Virginia)  with  his  machine." 
In  the  same  document  he  published  a  certificate  of  Abraham  Smith, 
dated  Egypt,  Rockingham  county,  October  31,  1844,  m  which  Mr. 
Smith-' states:  "I  believe  I  have  the  first  reaping  machine  disposed 
of  by  Mr.  Cyrus  H.  McCormick.  I  have  used  it  every  harvest  since 
1840."  Which  statements  together  show  pretty  clearly  that  his  first 
sales  ot  machines  were  made  not  earlier  than  184.0,  leaving  Mr. 
Hussey  at  least  six  years  in  advance  of  him  in  introducing  his 
machine  into  use*  %  And  during  this  time  Hussey's  machine  had 
made  such  an  impression  upon  the  public  mind  that  there  began  to 
be  a  demand  for  reaping  machines. 

Then  -eve  begin  to  hear  again  of  McCormick's  reaper?  We  hear 
of  one  in  use  in  1840,  and  of  two  more  in  1842.  There  may  have 
been  more  of  them  in  use  in  these  years.  We  have.no  knowledge 
of  any  more. 

To  fully  determine  the  merits  of  this  case"it"rbecomes~necessary 
to  trace  the 'origin  and  progress  of  improvements*  in  the-  reaping 


33 

machine  so  far  as  they  have  a  bearing  upon  it,  and  ascertain  how 
much  Mr.  McCormick  has  invented  since  1834. 

At  the  time  the  early  efforts  in  this  country,  to  which  we  have 
referred,  were  being  made,  Messrs.  Moore  and  Haskell,  of  Michi- 
gan, conceived  the  idea  of  constructing  a  machine,  not  only  for 
cutting  grain,  but  for  culling,  thrashing,  •winnowing'  and  sacking'  it 
at  one  operation.  This  was  a  magnificent  idea,  and  its  conception 
at  that  particular  time  affords  an  interesting  illustration  of  the  pro- 
gressive nature  of  inventions. 

*  Their  machine  was  necessarily  complicated,  and  required  years  of 
experiments  to  perfect  it,  but  has  finally  been  made,  by  the  perse- 
verance of  these  men,  one  of  the  most  perfectly  adapted  mechanical 
arrangement,  to  the  purpose  for  what  it  is  designed,  to  be  found 
in  the  whole  range  of  mechanics,  capable  of  cutting,  thrashing, 
winnowing  and  sacking  three  acres  of  wheat  per  hour.  These  men 
constructed  their  first  machine  in  1834,  and  took  out  a  patent  in 
June,  1836. 

This  machine  is  noticed  here  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
improvements  made  by  these  men  in  the  cutting  apparatus.  They 
cut  with  a  sickle  edge,  but  differing  from  Mr.  McCormick's  in  the 
following  particulars:  They  reversed  the  angle  of  their  sickle  teeth 
in  alternate  sections  of  an  inch  and  a  hajf  or  two  inches  each,  the  whole 
length  of  the  blade,  which  caused  it  to  cut  equally  both  ways, 
whereas  it  will  be  remembered  Mr.  McCormick's  sickle  teeth  all 
inclined  in  the  same  direction  and  cut  only  one  way.  This  difference 
is  shown  in  the  following  diagiams: 

MCCORMICK'S  SICKLE. 


A.  Sickle.     B.  The  long  teeth  of  the  upper  blade  for  holding  the  grain. 


MOORE    AND    HASKELL  S    SICKLE. 


C.  Sickle.     D    Guards  for  supporting  the  grain  through  which  the  sickle  vibrates. 

The  advantage  of  this  reversed  angle  of  the  teeth  must  be  appar- 
ent to  all  when  once  suggested.  Only  half  the  power  is  required 
to  move  the  sickle  when  cutting  that  is  required  to  move  it  when 
the  teeth  all  incline  ;n  the  same  direction.  It  cuts  -twice  as  often, 


34 

consequently  has  only  half  as  much  to  cut  each  time.  Indeed,  it  is 
believed  that  without  the  reversed  angle  the  use  of  the  sickle  in 
these  machines  is  impracticable.  Moore  and  Haskell  used  stationary 
guards  for  supporting  the  sickle,  similar  in  principle  to  those  used 
by  Hussey,.  which  supported  the  grain  whilst  it  was  cut. 

After  using  this  form  of  sickle  with  a  straight  edge  a  short  time, 
and  finding  it  defective,  they  invented  what  is  termed  the  scolloped 
sickle,  with  the  reversed  angle,  formed  thus: 


A.  Sickle.     B.  B.  B.  Guards  for  supporting  the  grain,  and  protecting  the  sickle. 

This  sickle  was  constructed  of  steel  plates  about  four  inches  long, 
riveted  to  a  bar  of  iron.  This  is  doubtless  the  best  arranged  cutter 
for  reaping  machines  now  known.  Many  persons,  however,  prefer 
Hussey's. 

Moore  and  Haskell  built  two  of  their  Harvesters  at  Rochester, 
N.  Y.,  in  1836,  in  which  they  put  the  straight  sickle  with  the  re- 
versed angle  of  the  teeth,  which,  however,  soon  afterwards  gave 
place  to  the  scolloped  sickle;  but  of  the  exact  date  of  this  change 
we  are  not  informed. 

Mr.  McCormick  obtained  a  patent  for  improvements  in  his  reap- 
ing machine  on  the  3ist.pf  January,  1845..  By  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  improvements  claimed  in  this  patent  of  1845,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  foregoing  facts,  we  are  enabled  to  ascertain  how  much 
he  then  invented.  He  made  the  following  alterations  in  his  ma- 
chine of  1834.  The  team  was  taken  from  behind  the  machine,  and 
placed  in  front,  the  same  as  Schnebly,  Hussey,  Randall,  and  Moore 
and  Haskell  had  placed  theirs  from  the  first.  He  threw  aside  the 
old  sickle  with  the  teeth  all  inclined  in  one  direction,  and  adopted 
the  reversed  angle  of  teeth  invented  by  Moore  and  Haske!l,  and  put 
in  use  by  them,  certainly  as  early  as  1836.  He  dispensed  with  the 
upper  -vibrating  blade  with  the  long  teeth  for  holding  the  grain,  and 
substituted  in  its  stead  stationary  guards,  or  fingers  (as  they  are 
termed  by  Mr.  McCormick).  These  guards  were  shaped  some- 
what differently  from  Hussey's,  or  Moore  and  Haskell's.  They 
passed  over  the  sickle  instead  of  the  sickle  passing  through  slots  in 
them,  and  were  broad  in  front  and  angled  back  towards  the  sickle, 
forming  on  both  sides  of  the  fingers  an  acute  angle  with  its  edge,- as 
in  the  diagram: 


A.  Sickle.     B.  B.  Guards. 

With  this  form  of  guard  he  retained  on  both  sides  of  it  the  same 
angle  to  the  edge  of  the  sickle  that  he  had  on  the  long  teeth  in  the 
upper  blade  in  1834,  on  the  side  against  which  the  grain  was  cut, 
which  become  necessary,  as  the  sickle  now  cuts  both  ways.  The 
acute  angle  is  important  where  the  straight  sickle  is  used,  but  of  no 
account  with  the  scalloped  sickle.  He  dispensed  with  the  plates 
bolted  to  the  under  side  of  the  finger  piece,  and  to  the  sickle,  for 
supporting  the  sickle,  and  let  the  sickle  slide  on  a  bar  of  iron  ex- 
tending the  whole  length  of  it,  which  bar  or  knife  case  was  sup- 
ported by  straps  of  'iron  passing  from  it  to  the  finger  piece,  leaving 
a  narrow  space  between  the  knife  case  and  finger  piece,  and  in  this 
space  these  supports  were  bent  downwards.  He  put  upon  the  in- 
side of  the  point  that  extends  in  front  of  the  sickle,  and  divides  the 
grain  to  be  cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing,  an  iron  rod,  which  was 
attached  near  the  point  by  two  bolts,  one  of  which  passed  through 
a  slot  in  the  rod.  Being  thus  attached,  the  back  end  ot  it  could  be 
raised  and  lowered.  From  these  bolts  thijj  rod  rose  towards  the  reel 
at  an  angle  of  about  thirty  degrees,  until  it  came  in  contact  with  it, 
and  was  then  bent  to  fit  the  circle  described  by  the  reel,  and  ex- 
tended back  to  the  sickle.  Being  thus  arranged,  it  could  be  raised 
and'lowered  as  it  was  required  to  raise  or  lower  the  reel,  and  thus 
be  always  kept  in  contact  with  the  arms  of  the  reel,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  divide  the  grain. 

He  shifted  the  foot  of  the  reel  post  on  the  left  side  of  the  ma- 
chine, which  was  in  front  of  the  sickle,-  to  about  nine  inches  back  of 
it,  curved  it  outwards  and  leaned  it  forwards,  and  extended  it  so 
high  that  it  could  be  braced  from  the  top  across  in  front  of  the  reel, 
to  the  tongue  between  the  horses. 

On  these  improvements  he  has  five  claims  in  the  patent  of   1845. 

The  first  claim  is  on  the  bend  downwards  in  the  bearers  that  sup- 
port the  knife-case. 

Second.  The  reversed  angle  of  the  sickle  teeth;  an  improve- 
ment that  Moore  and  Haskeil  put  into  use  certainly  as  early  as  nine 
years  before  that  time. 

•Third.  The  form  of  the  guards  or  fingers  in  front  of  the  sickle, 
forming  an  acute  angle  with  the  edge. 

The  fourth  is  a  combination  of  the  dividing  iron  and  a  bow  on  the 
outside  of  the  divider,  for  separating  the  wheat. 

The  fifth  is  setting  the  lower  end  of   the  reel  post  behind  the  cut- 


36 

ter,  curving  it  out  and  leaning  it  forward,  to  favor  the  cutting  and 
enabling  him  to  brace  it  across  to  the  tongue. 

Mr.  McCormick  is  the  only  man  known  to  us  who  ever  placed  a 
reel-post  vc\  front  of  the  culler,  on  the  side  of  the  machine  that  runs 
in  the  grain.  Bell's  machine  had  no  reel-posts.  The  reel  was  sup- 
ported by  bearers  extending  horizontally  from  the  frame  in  rear  of 
the  revolving  apron  on  which  the  grain  fell,  and  these  bearers  had 
no  supports  in  front  or  at  the  side  of  the  apron,  thus  leaving  the 
whole  space  from  the  front  of  the  divider  to  the  rear  of  the  apron, 
free  from  any  obstruction  to  cutting  the  grain,  or  to  throwing  it  off 
at  either  side.  •  Schneblv,  and  Randall,  and  Moore  and  Haskell,  all 
placed  their  reel-posts  in  rear  of  the  cutters. 

If  a  patent  had  been  asked  for  on  the  original  machine,  for  placing 
the  reel-post  on  the  side  of  the  standing  grain,  in  front  of  the  sickle, 
the  application,  so  far  as  originality  was  concerned,  would  certainly 
have  been  entitled  to  success;  and  probably  no  new  inventor  would 
have  attempted  to  improve  upon  the  machine  in  that  direction. 

This  machine  of  McCormick's  was  still  constructed  for  a  man  to 
walk  at  the  side  and  rake  off  the  grain.  This  idea  of  walking  at 
the  side  of  the  machine  to  rake  off  the  grain,  appears  to  have  been 
exclusively  Mr.  McCormick's,  he  being  the  only  man  known  to  us, 
who  ever  constructed  a  machine  to  be  used  in  that  manner. 

His  next  claim  to  invention  is  for  putting  a  seat  for  the  raker 
upon  this  machine,  in  a  certain  location,  for  which  he  obtained  a 
patent  on  the  23d  of  October,  1847. 

In  this  patent  of  1847,  he  claims,  besides  the  seat  for  the  raker, 
the  changing  the  position  of  the  gearing  from  the  rear  of  the  driv- 
ing wheel  to  the  front  of  it;  but  he  soon  abandoned  this  arrange- 
ment and  placed  the  gearing  back  again  in  rear  of  the  driving  wheel, 
which  leaves  the  seat  as  the  only  material  thing  in  this  patent.  But 
we  here  insert  both  claims,  which  are  in  the  following  words,  to  wit: 

"  What  I  claim  as  my  invention  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters  patent, 
bearing  date  the  2ist  of  June,  1834,  anc^  *ne  3Ist:  °^  January,  1845, 
is  placing  the  gearing  and  crank  forward  of  the  driving  wheel  for 
protection  from  dirt,  etc.,  and  thus  carrying  the  driving  wheel  fur- 
ther back  than  heretofore,  and  sufficiently  so  to  balance  the  rear  part 
of  the  frame  and  the  raker  thereon,  when  this  position  of  the  parts,  is 
combined  with  the  sickle,  back  of  the  axis  of  motion  of  the  driv- 
ing wheel,  by  means  of  the  vibrating  lever,  substantially  as  herein 
described.  And  I  also  claim  as  my  invention,  the. arrangement  of 
the  seat  of  the  raker  over  the  end  of  the  finger  piece,  which  projects 
beyond  the  range  of  fingers,  and  just  back  of  the  driving  wheel,  as 
described,  in  combination  with,  and  placed  at  the  end  of  the  reel, 
whereby  the  raker  can  sit  with  his  back  towards  the  team, 
and  thus  have  free  access  to  the  cut  grain  laid  on  the  platform  and 


37 

back  of  the  reel,  and  rake  it  from  thence  to  the  ground,  by  a  natural 
sweep  of  his  body,  and  lay  it  in  a  range  at  right  angles  with  the 
swath,  as  described,  thereby  avoiding  unevenness  and  scattering  in 
the  discharge  of  the  wheat,  us  well  as  accomplishing  the  same  with 
a  great  saving  of  labor." 

The  inventions  claimed  in  these  patents  of  1845  and  1847,  maybe 
briefly  summed  up  thus:  Bending  the  bearers  of  the  knife  case 
downwards;  adopting  Moore  and  HaskelPs  reversed  angled  sickle; 
so  forming  his  guards,  when  he  adopted  the  reversed  angle  and  con- 
sequently cut  both  ways,  that  they  presented  the  same  angle  to  the 
line  of  the  edge  of  the  sickle,  that  they  did  on  the  side  against  which 
the  grain  was  cut  in  the  old  machine;  putting  on  the  divider  iron; 
moving  the  reel  post  back;  changing  the  gearing  to  the  front  of  the 
driving  wheel;  and  putjting  on  a  raker's  seat.  And  in  making 
these  improvements,  as  common-place  as  they  all  are,  he  had  the 
benefit  of  the  suggestions  of  the  mechanics  who  built  the  machines, 
and  the  farmers  who  used  them. 

In  January,  1851,  Mr.  McCormick  gave  public  notice  that  he  had 
since  the  harvest  of  1850,  made  an  important  improvement  in  his 
reaper.  Which  improvement  consisted  in  substituting  Moore  and 
Haskell's  scolloped  sickle  in  place  of  the  straight  one.  This  -was 
indeed  an  important  improvement  to  him,  for  as  the  scolloped  sickle 
had  been  brought  into  competition  with  the  straight  one,  the  latter 
fast  sank  into  disrepute.  And  furthermore,  this  improvement  was 
adopted  at  an  important  time  for  hirrl,  just  as  he  was  preparing  for 
the  world's  fair. 

We  have  noticed  all  of  Mr.  McCormick's  pretentions  to  invention, 
so  far  as  they  have  come  to  our  knowledge,  and  without  stopping 
to  comment  upon  them,  we  submit  in  connection  with  the  facts  here 
set  forth,  the  question  of  his  merit  as  an  inventor,  to  the  decision  of 
the  reader. 

Strip  the  machine  of  those  things  which  have  been  con- 
fessedly the  invention  of  other  men,  and  borrowed  (to  use  no  harsher 
term)  from  them,  and  what  is  left  as  the  result  of  his  inventive 
genius,  would  hardly  be  worth  an  application  to  Congress  to  per- 
petuate. 

Take  away  the'reel,  which  was  invented  by  Bell,  and  was  in  use 
in  this  country,  both  by  Randall  and  Schnebly  before  McCormick 
commenced;  take  away  the  position  of  the -horses  in  front  of  the 
machine,  invented  by  Randall,  Schnebly  and  Hussey,  nearly  simul- 
taneously, and  place  them  behind  the  machine  to  push  it,  as  used  by 
McCormick,  in  further  imitation  of  Bell;  take 'away  the  reversed 
angle  of  the  sickle  which  was  included  in  McCormick's  patent  of 
1845,  after  it  had  been  invented  and  used  ten  years  by  Moore  & 
Haskell  in  New  York  and  Michigan;  and  take  away  the  still  later 


38 

and  more  important  improvement,  of  the  scalloped  edged  sickle, 
which  he  has  since  borrowed  from  the  same  men,  and  leave  him  his 
sickle,  cutting' during  only  half  its  motion;  and  take  away  the  seat, 
which  was  borrowed  from  Hussey  and  Randall,  and  place  his  raker 
on  the  ground  by  the  side  of  the  machine,  and  the  reader  can  then 
judge  what  there  is  left  original  and  valuable  in  McCormick's  ma- 
chine, as  the  result  of  his  invention. 

In  that  condition  the  machine  might  with  propriety  claim  kindred 
with  the  daw  when  stripped  of  ,his  borrowed  plumage;  and  although 
it  would  doubtless  still  have  its  triumphs  at  the  World's  Fair,  they 
would  not  have  been  of  the  kind  which  receive  medals  as  their 
reward. 

There  are  some  steps  in  the  progress  of  these  inventions  to  which 
we  would  call  especial  attention.  .  • 

The  change  of  the  position  of  the  horses  from  the  rear  to  the 
front  of  the  machine,  is  believed  to  be  the  chief  improvement  upon 
previous  efforts,  which  has  rendered  the  reaping  machine  practically 
useful.  A  little  reflection  will  satisfy  any  person,  that,  although 
grain  might  be  very  well  cut  with  a  machine  pushed  forward  by 
horses  harnessed  behind  it,  the  difficulties  attending  its  management 
would  effectually  prevent  its  introduction,  in  that  form,  into  general 
use.  It  is  the  change  in  this  respect,  far  more  than  any  other,  which 
has  given  the  American  reaping  machines  their  success.  There  is 
no  other  point  which  might  not  be  supplied  from  the  foreign  ma- 
chines, but  this  could  not. 

For  this  we  are  indebted  to  Mr.  McCormick.  He,  however, 
adopted  it  soon  after  its  invention.  This  change  may  be  considered 
a  very  simple  one,  but  it  had  not  occurred  to  the  foreign  inventors, 
nor  to  Mr.  McCormick. 

The  method  of  cutting  by  knives,  operating  somewhat  upon  the 
principle  of  shears,  had  been  invented  by  Bell,  and  was  used  by 
Randall  and  Schnebly,  prior  to  McCormick's  experiments,  and  is  still 
used  by  Hussey  with  excellent  success. 

The  use  of  the  straight  blade,  having  an  edge  like  that  of  a  sickle, 
with  the  teeth  inclined  all  in  one  direction,  seems  to  have  been 
original  with  Mr.  McCormick.  But  as  that  would  cut  during  the 
motion  of  the  blade  in  one  direction  only,  it  could  not  operate  suc- 
cessfully, except  in  ripe,  dry  grain,  free  from  grass  or  weeds.  With 
care  and  attention  it  could  be  used,  but  its  defects  prevented  any 
general  use  of  the  machine  for  nearly  ten  years  after  the  patent  was 
obtained.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  if  Mr.  McCormick  had 
not  adopted,  as  he  did  in  1845,  the  reversed  angle  of  the  sickle,  as 
invented  by  Moore  and  Haskell,  his  machine  would  never  have 
been  introduced  into  general  use,  and  now,  since,  the  invention  of 
•the  scalloped  edged  sickle  by  the  same  men,  it  would  be  entirely 


39 

abandoned,  were  it  not  for  the  use,  by  McCormick,  of  that  invert 
tion  alsq.t 

The  seat,  which  constitutes  the  substance  of  his  patent  of  1847, 
was  the  only  point  of  controversy  in  the  suit  before  alluded  to 
against  Seymour  &  Morgan,  tried  at  Albany  in  October  last. 

The' seat  was  first  used  by  McCormick  in  1845  (though  perhaps 
tried  the'fall  previous.)  For  more,  than  ten  years  after  his  first 
patent,  the  raker  walked  by  the  side  of  his  machine,  to  rake  oft 
the  grain.  It  was  proved  on  that  trial,  that  during  the  harvest  of 
1844,  McCormick  and  Hussey,,  with  their  respective  machines, 
operated  one  day  side  by  side,  in  the  same  wheat  field  in  Virginia, 
the  raker  upon  Hussey's  machine  riding  upon  the  machine  to  per- 
form the  raking,  whilst  McCormick's  raker  walked  by  the  side  of 
his  machine.  The  next  season  (1845)  McCorrmck  placed  a  similar 
seat  for  the  raker  upon  his  machine,  and  for  placing  it  there, 
received  letters  patent  from  the  United  States  as  tne  reward  of  his 
invention. 


•It  will  be  seen  that  the  McCormick  seat  was  quite  different  from  the  seat  as 
patented  by  Hussey  (see  cut  attached),,  which  was  more  properly  a  reeler's  seat 
than  a  raker's  seat,  as  his  fake  performed' more  the  function  of  the  reel  in  the  Mc- 
Cui  inick  machine.  In  Hussey's  machine  the  man  reached  forward  into  the  stand- 
ing grain  with  his  rake  and  carried  it  back  to  and  against  the  cutters,  and  left  the 
grain  deposited  on  the  ground  directly  in  the  rear  of  the  machine  and  in  the  way 
of  the  horses  on  their  next  round  (rear  delivery).  The  McCormick  rake  was  very 
different,  as  it  carried  the  grain  across  the  machine  and  left  it  deposited  on  the 
ground  at  its  side  and  out  of  the  way  of. the  horses  on  their  next  round  (side  de- 
livery). Hussey,  therefore,  may  well  claim  that  with  his  machine  he  did  not  need 
a  reel. 


4o 


It  was  not  claimed  upon  the  trial,  on  the  part  of  McCormick,  that 
the  seat  was  his  invention,  or  the  placing  it  upon  the  reaping  ma- 
chine; but  that  he  was  the  first  to  use  a  seat  upon  a  machine  having 
a  reel;  (Hussey  uses  no  reel),  and  upon  this  ground  his  patent  was 
sustained,  and  he  obtained  a  verdict  of  upwards  of  $17,000 'for  a 
single  year's  infringement  of  his  patent  for  that  great  invention. 

It  was  not  then  known  to  the  defendants  that  Mr.  Randall  had 
made  the  same  invention,  of  both  seat  and  reel,  and  had  used 
them  together  successfully  for  several  years,  more  than  ten  years 
before  Mr.  McCormick  had  attempted  to. put  a  seat  upon  his  ma- 
chine. 

We  have  no  right  to  object,  and  do  not  object  to  Mr.  McCor- 
mick's  using  other  men's  inventions,  to  any  extent  which  may  suit 
his  convenience  (so  long  as  the  real  inventors  remain  quiet),  nor  to 
his  reaping  any  harvest,  however  rich,  of  fame  and  money,  as  a 
reward  for  the  exercise  of  his  genius  in  that  direction.  But  when 
the  extraordinary  power  of  Congress  is  invoked  to  perpetuate  for 
/n's  benefit,  the  monopoly  of  such  inventions,  we  regard  it  as  both  a 
right  and  a  duty  to  protest  against  it,  and  to  call  to  the  subject,  so 
far  as  we  are  able,  the  public  attention. 

That  the  main  features  of  the  patent  of  1834  (which  is  now 
Sought  to  be  renewed),  indeed  all  the  things  embraced  in  that  patent, 
which  are  of  any  value,  were  not  invented  by  Mr.  McCormick,  or 
if  invented  by  him,  that  he  was  not  the  first  inventor,  we  think 
sufficiently  appears  from  the  report  of  Professor  Page,  which  we 
have  here  given;  but  if  any  doubts  remain  after  reading  that  report, 
they  will  be  removed  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  inventions  to 
which  reference  has  been  here  made. 

Much  has  been  said  in  the  public  prints  of  this  country  In  relation 
to  the  success  of  McCormick's  reaper  in  England.  :  Whether  the 


41 

then  pending  suit  to  which  we  have  alluded,  and  the  contemplated 
application  to  Congress  for  a  renewal  of  the  patent,  had  any  ten- 
dency to  inflate,  beyond  their  natural  dimensions,  the  newspaper 
articles  on  the  subject,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  But  in  order 
that  the  just  extent  of  that  much  lauded  triumph  may  be  under- 
stood and  appreciated,  we  append  hereto  an  account  of  the  last 
trial  between  McCormick's  and  Hussey's  reapers  in  England  (which 
were  the  only  machines  tried,  when  McCormick's  great  victory  is 
supposed  to  have  been  won),  together  with  the  verdict  of  the  jury 
selected  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  the  two  machines.  The  ac- 
count is  taken  from  the  London  Farmer's  Magazine  for  November, 
1851. 

"The  decision  of  the  merits  of  the  two  American  reaping  ma- 
chines, brought  into  competition  at  the  Middlesborough  meeting 
of  the  Cleveland  Agricultural  Society,  terminated  exactly  as  we 
expected.  We  stated  that,  at  the  first  day's  trial,  the  only  decision 
which  could  be  made,  was,  that  the  one  showed  it  could  do  work 
which  the  other  would  not.  A  more  favorable  day  was  selected 
fora  second  trial,  especially  on  ridge  and  furrow,  and  in  lodged 
corn;  and  we  stated  we  were  much  mistaken  if  the  decision  did  pot 
turn  out  to  be  in  favor  of  Hussey's  machine,  and  not  to  the  one 
which  obtained  the  medal  at  the  Great  Exhibition.  Our  opinions 
are  shown  by  the  event  to  be  correct.  The  jury  appointed  con- 
sisted of  good  country  names  of  practical  men: 

"Rev.  William  Fitzwilliam  Wharton,  rector  of  Birmingham, 
Richmond,  foreman;  John  Thomas  Wharton,  Esq.,  Skelton  Castle, 
Guisborough;  Mr.  John  Parrington,  Brancepeth,  Durham;  Mr. 
William  Morley,  Dishforth,Thirsk;  Mr.  John  Mason  Hopper,  New- 
ham  Grange,  Middlesborough;  Mr.  Joseph  Parrington,  Crossbeck 
House,  Middlesborough;  Mr.  George  Reade,  Hutton  Low  Cross, 
Guisborough;  Mr.  Robert  Fawcitt,  Ormesby,  Middlesborough; 
Mr.  William  Hill,  Stainton,  Middlesborough;  Mr.  Joseph  Coulson, 
Sexhovv,  Stokesley;  Mr.  Thomas  Parrington,  Marlon,  Middles- 
borough;  Mr.  Joseph  Harrison,  Ormesby,  Middlesborough. 

"The  following  were  the  instructions  of  the  jury,  and  the  points 
to  which  their  attention  was  to  be  directed: 

"'The  machines  to  be  tried  on  wheat  and  barley,  in  such  order 
and  for  such  lengths  of  time  as  the  jury  may  direct. 

" '  The  jury  to  have  full  power  to  use  any  means  they  may  deem 
•advisable,  in  order  to  put  the  machines  to  the  severest  trials. 

"kThe  jury,  in  deciding  on  the  merits  of  the  two  machines,  to 
take  into  their  consideration — 

'"  i.     Which  of  the  two  cuts  corn  in  the  best  manner? 

"'2.     Which  of  the  two  causes  the  least  waste? 

"  '  3.     Which  of  the  two  does  the  most  work  in  a  given  time?. 


42 

" c  4.  Which  of  the  two  leaves  the  cut  corn  in  the  best  order  for 
gathering  and  binding? 

"'5.     Which  of  the  two  is  best  adapted   for  ridge  and  furrow? 

"<6.     Which  of  the  two  is  the  least  liable  to  get  out  of  repair? 

'"7.     Which  of  the  two,  at  first  cost,  is  less  price? 
i" '  8.     Which  of  the  two  requires  the  least  amount  of  horse  labor? 

"'9.  Which  of  the  two  requires  the  least  amount  of  manual 
labor? 

'"  And  whichever  of  the  two  machines  so  tried  and  tested  has  in 
it  the  greater  number  of  the  above  qualifications,  according  to  the 
opinions  of  a  majority  of  the  jury,  is  to  be  pronounced  the  best 
instrument. 

"'  Middlesborough,  Sept.  1851.' 

"  The  trial  came  off  as  we  have  before  described,  and  the  follow- 
ing was  the  award  of  the  jury: 

"  '  The  jury  regret  exceedingly  the  most  unfavorable  state  of  the 
weather  on  the  days  of  trial  (a  perfect  hurricane  raging  the  whole 
of  the  first  day),  and  their  consequent  inability  to  make  so  full  and 
and  satisfactory  a  trial  as  they  could  have  wished. 

" '  Tne  machines  were  tested  on  a  crop  of  wheat,  computed  at  25 
bushels  per  acre,  very  much  laid;  and  on  barley  at  25  bushels  per 
acre,  very  short,  in  the  straw,  and  if  possible  more  laid  than  the 
wheat. 

" '  The  jury  taking  the  different  points  submitted  to  their  consid- 
eration in  the  order  in  which  they  occur  above,  express — 

"'i.  Their  unanimous  opinion  that  Mr.  Hussey's  machine,  as 
exhibited  by  Messrs.  William  Dray  and  Company,  cut  the  corn  in 
the  best  manner,  especially  across  ridge  and  furrow,  and  when  the 
machine  was  working  in  the  direction  the  corn  lay. 

"'2.  By  a  majority  of  eleven  to  one,  that  Mr.  Hussey's  machine 
caused  the  least  waste. 

"'3.  Taking  the  breadth  of  the  two  machines  into  considera- 
tion, that  Mr.  Hussey's  did  the  most  work. 

"  '4.  That  Mr.  Hussey's  machine  leaves  the  cut  corn  in  the  best 
order  for  gathering  and  binding.  This  question  was  submitted  to 
the  laborers  employed  on  the  occasion,  and  decided  by  them  as 
above,  by  a  majority  of  6  to  4. 

"  '  5.  Their  unanimous  opinion  that  Mr.  Hussey's  machine  is 
best,adapted  for  ridge  and  furrow. 

" '  6.  This  question  was  referred  by  the  jury  to  Mr.  Robinson, 
foreman  to  Messrs.  Bellerby,  of  New  York,  a  practical  mechanic  of 
acknowledged  ability,  whose  report  is  appended. 

" '  7.     That  Mr.  Hussey's  machine  at  first  cost  is  less  price. 

" '  8,  9.  The  jury  decline  to  express  a  decided  opinion  on  these 
points,  in  consequence  of  the  state  of  the  weather.' 


43 

" '  The  trials  took  place  on  the  farm  of  Robert  Fawcitt,  of 
Ormesby,  near  Middlesborough-on-Tees,  who,  in  the  most  liberal 
and  disinterested  spirit,  allowed  his  crops  to  be  trodden  down  and 
damaged  to  a  very  great  extent,  especially  on  the  25th,  when,  in 
spite  of  the  storm,  an  immense  crowd  assembled  to  witness  the  trials. 

" '  The  jury  cannot  conclude  their  report  without  expressing  the 
great  pleasure  they  have  derived  from  seeing  two  machines  brought 
into  competition  that  are  able  to  do  such  very  good  work,  and  also 
at  witnessing  the  friendly,  straightforward  and  honorable  way  in 
which  the  exhibitors  of  the  respective  machines  met  on  this  occasion. 

"  *  Mr.  Robinson,  on  question  6,  says,  '  Having  carefully  examined 
both  machines,  and  given  the  subject  due  consideration,  I  am  of 
opinion  that  McCormick's  reaping  machine,  as  at  present  made,  is 
most  liable  to  get  out  of  order.' 

« « W.  F  WHARTON.'  " 


EXTRACTS  FROM  A  BRIEF  NARRATIVE 

OF    THE 

INVENTION  OF  REAPING  MACHINES, 

AND   AN    EXAMINATION    OF   THE   CLAIMS    FOR    PRIORITY   OF    INVENTION 
BY    A    MARYLAND    FARMER    AND    MACHINIST. 


As  to  the  theoretical  portion  of  the  business,  the  inquiry  might  be 
greatly  extended,  indeed,  for  past  centuries,  as  we  have  imperfect 
accounts  of  reaping  machines  being  used  by  the  Romans. 

It  was  not  until  near  the  close  of  the  past,  and  within  the  present 
century,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  that  the  subject  again  claimed  much 
attention  of  the  inventive  talent  of  either  this,  or  foreign  countries. 
Of  some  half  dozen  or  more  attempts  made  in  Great  Britain,  and 
recorded  in  Loudon's  Encyclopaedia  of  Agriculture,  the  Edinburg 
Encyclopaedia,  .and  other  similar  works,  all,  or  nearly  all,  relied 
either  upon  scythes  or  cutters,  with  a  rotary  motion,  or  vibrating 
shears.  And  although  there  was  "  go  ahead  "  about  them  in  one 
sense  of  the  term,  as  it  was  intended  for  the  "  cart  to  go  before  the 
horse,"  none  of  them  appeared  to  have  gained,  or  certainly  not  long 
retained,  the  confidence  of  the  farmers,  for  at  the  exhibition  of  the 
"  World's  Fair  in  London,"  1851,  the  whole  Kingdom  could  not  raise 
a  reaping  machine — a  practical  implement  which  was  considered 
worth  using  and  exhibiting. 

The  excitement  and  sensation  produced  by  the  American  reapers 
caused  renewed  efforts  on  the  part  of  English  inventors,  some 
who  had  near  a  quarter  of  a  century  previously  been  endeav- 
oring to  effect  this  "  great  desideratum,"  to  use  an  English  editorial, 
and  the  most  conspicuous,  of  -these  was  one  invented  by 'the  Rev. 
Patrick  Bell,  of  Scotland.  Of  the  half  a  score  or  more  and  previous 
inventors  in  Great  Britain— Boyce,  Plunkett,  Gladstone,  of  Castle 
Douglass,  Salmon,  of  Waburn,  Smith,  of  Deanston  in  Perthshire,  etc., 
etc. — none  were  waked  up  from  their  Rip  Van  Winkle  slumbers, 
or  if  they  were  the  world  is  not  advised  of  it.  They  all  used  re- 
volving scythes,  revolving  cutters,  or  shears  instead.  Several  trials 
were  made  with  Bell's  in  1828  or  1829,  and  a  very  full  and  minute 
description  with  plates  was  published  some  twenty-four  or  twenty- 


five  years  ago,  and  may  be  found  in  London's  Encyclopaedia  of 
Agriculture. 

It  was,  however,  too  complicated,  too  cumbersome  and  expensive, 
performed  too  little  service,  and  required  too  much  tinkering  and 
repairs  to  be  viewed  as  a  practical  and  available  implement.  The 
English  farmer  found  the  sickle  or  reap  hook  preferable,  for  it  was 
everywhere  resorted  to.  The  cutting  apparatus  of  Bell's  consisted 
of  shears,  one  half  stationary,  the  other  vibrating  and  turning  on 
the  bolt  that  confined  them  to  the  iron  bar  which  extends  across  the 
front  of  the  frame.  The  vibrating  motion  was  given  by  connecting 
the  back  ohd  of  one  shear  to  a  bar — making  the  bolt  the  fulcrum — 
and  which  was  attached  to  a  crank,  revolving  by  gear  to  the  driv- 
ing wheels. 

A  reel  was  used  to  gather  the  grain  to  the  shears,  and  adjustable, 
back  and  forth,  and  higher  or  lower,  to  suit  the  height  of  the  grain. 
A  revolving  apron  delivered  the  grain  in  a  continuous  swath,  and 
the  team  was  attached  to  the  rear  of  the  machine,  -pushing  it 
through  the  grain. 

We  have  been  more  minute  in  the  description  of  Bell's  machine, 
because  it  may  have  been  the  foundation  of  some  of  the  early  and 
nearly  simultaneous  attempts  made  in  this  country.  In  fact  it  does 
not  admit  of  doubt  that  several  were  nearly  identical  with  Bell's  in 
the  use  of  the  shears  and  reel,  though  with  much  more  simple  gear- 
ing, and  in  the  general  arrangement.  Whether  they  were  original 
inventions  cannot  be  ascertained.  In  this  country,  from  1800  to 
1833,  out  of  some  fifteen  or  twenty  patents  granted  for  "cutting 
grain"  and  "cutting  grass,"  only  four  appear  to  have  been  "re- 
stored "— /.  £.,  technically  speaking,  "  not  restored  " — in  models  and 
drawings  after  the  burning  of  the  Patent  Office  in  1836.  Many,  if 
not  most  of  them,  were  probably  improvements  in  the  grain  cradle, 
and  mowing  scythe;  though  the  names  are  preserved,  there  is  no 
record  to  show  for  what  particulars  the  patents  were  granted. 
•There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  inventors  considered  them 
valueless,  as  they  were  "  not  restored,"  though  Congress  voted 
large  sums  to  replace  the  burnt  models  and  drawings,  without  any 
expense  to  the  parties.  Of  those  restored,  James  Ten  Eyck's  patent 
is  dated  1825,  William  Manning's  in  1831,  William  and  Thomas 
Schnebly's  in  1833,  and  Obed  Hussey's  also  in  1833. 

James  Ten  Eyck  used  an  open  reel;  not  only  to  gather  the  grain, 
but  his  cutters  or  shears  were  attached  to,  and  revolved  with  the 
reel — very  much,  if  not  exactly,  on  the  principle  of  shearing 
cloth. 

William  Manning  used  another  form  of  cutters,  and  quite  differ- 
ent from  James  Ten  Evck's.  He  likewise  used  fingers  or  teeth  to 
support  the  grain  during  the  action  of  the  horizontal  cutters. 


William  and  Thomas  Schnebly,  of  Maryland,  also  use.d  the;  reel, 
with  shears  as  cutters,  very  similar  to  Bell's. 

Abr'm  Randall,  or  Rundell,  of  New  York  (for  the  name  is  spelled 
both  ways),  was  another  of  the  early  inventors.  His  patent  of 
1835  is  not  restored,  though  it  is  stated  his  machine  was  experi- 
mented with  as  early  as  1833  or  1834.  He  also  used  the  reel,  and 
his  cutters,  it  is  said,  were  similar  to  Bell's — using  shears. 

T.  D.  Burrall,  of  New  York,  was  also  one  of  the  early  inventors, 
about  1832  or  1833,  Dut  we  believe  professedly  after  Bell's,  so  far 
as  to  use  a  reel  and  shears. 

We  now  come  to  1833,  the  date  of  Hussey's  patent,  and  to  1834, 
the  date  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  first  patent.  These  were  known 
and  admitted  by  all  to  have  been  the  rivals  for  popular  favor  and 
patronage,  from  about  the  year  1844  or  1845  to  the  opening  of  the 
great  Industrial  Exhibition  in  London,  in  1851.  To  these,  therefore, 
the  enquiry  will  be  more  particularly  directed. 

We  must,  however,  refer  back  for  a  brief  period  to  1831;  for 
although  C.  H.  McCormick's  first  patent  was  dated  in  1834,  yet, 
when  he  applied  for  his  extension  in  1848,  he  alleged  that  his  mven- 
iiun  was  prior  to  Hussey's,  as  he  had  invented  a  machine  in  1831, 
two  years  before  the  date  of  O.  Hussey's,  and  three  years  before 
the  date  of  his  own  patent.  The  evidence  produced  (written  and 
•prepared  by  C.  H.  McCormick  and  now  on  file  in  the  patent  office) 
was  deemed  inadmissible  and  informal  by  the  board,  and  it  refused 
to  go  on  with  the  examination  either  as  to  priority  or  validity  of  in- 
vention, without  notice  to  Hussey — his  patent  being  called  in  ques- 
tion by  McCormick— to  be  present  when  the  depositions  were 
taken. 

Before,  however,  receiving  the  official  notice,  he  was  called  on  by 
C.  H.  McCormick  in  Baltimore,  and  requested  to  sign  a  paper, 
agreeing  or  admitting  that  the  testimony  he  had  himself  prepared 
should  be  considered  evidence;  i.,e.,  considered  formal;  alleging 
that  it  would  save  him  trouble  and  expense  in  going  to  Virginia. 
This  was  declined  by  Hussey  on  the  ground  ihat  he  might  thus  un- 
wittingly injure  himself,  he  having  previously  applied  for  an  exten- 
sion of  his  own  patent^  Neither  was  he  then  aware  of  the  nature 
of  this  evidence;  nor,  until  this  interview,  was  he  advised  of  C.  H. 
McCormick's  application  for  extension. 

Hussey  was  subsequently  duly  notified  by  order  of  the  board  to 
be  present  at  taking  the  depositions  in  Augusta  county,  Virginia,  the 
board  having  adjourned  three  weeks  for  that  purpose. 

Either  just  previous,  or  subsequent  to  these  proceedings,  the  case 
"was  referred  by  the  commissioner  of  patents,  or  board  of  extensions, 
.to  Dr.  Page,  one  of  the  examiners  of  the  office. 

His  report  is  as  follows: 


47 

"PATENT  OFFICE,  January  22,  1848. 

"SiR:  In  compliance  with  your  requisition,  I  have  examined  the 
patent  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick,  dated  3ist  June,  1834,  anc*  found 
that  the.  principal  features  embraced  in  said  patent,  viz.,  the  cutting- 
knife  and  mode  of  operating  it,  the  ringers  to  guide  the  grain,  and 
the  revolving  rack  for  gathering  the  grain,  were  not  new  at  tht!  time 
of  granting  said  letters  patent. 

"  The  knife-fingers  and  general  arrangements  and  operation  of 
the  cutting  apparatus,  are  found  in  the  reaping  machine  of  O.  Hus- 
sey,  patented  3ist  December,  1833. 

"The  revolving  rack  presents  novelty  chiefly  in  form,  as  its  oper- 
ation is  similar  to  the  revolving  frame  of  James  Ten  Eyck,  patented 
2nd  November,  1825. 

"  Respectfully  submitted. 

-—-.-__  "  CHAS.  G.  PAGE,  Examiner. 

"  Hon.  Edmund  Burke,  Coni'r  of  Patents" 

As  some  have  inquired,  and  others  may  inquire,  why  a  patent 
should  issue  under  these  circumstances,  we  reply  that,  previous  to 
1836,  but  little,  if  any,  examination  was  made  as  to  priority  of  in- 
ventions, or  into  preceding  patents;  the  applicant  made  oath  as  to  his 
invention,  and  the  patent  was  issued  as  a  matter  of  course.  And, 
as  another  matter  of  course,  if  the  rival  interests  clashed,  litigation 
was  the  result:  the  courts  and  juries  often  decided  what  they  little 
understood,  and  at  times  not  at  all,  after  the  pleading  of  well  feed 
lawyers. 

This  testimony  was  taken  in  due  form  at  Steele's  tavern,  Augusta 
county,  Virginia,  McCormick  and  Hussey  both  being  present.  It  is 
too  voluminous  to  copy  entire,  but  we  will  refer  briefly  to  each, 
having  read  them  carefully,  and  obtained  certified  copies  of  all,  from 
the  patent  office. 

Dr.  N.  M.  Hitt  testified  to  a  reaping  machine  being  made  by  C. 
H.  McCormick  in  1831;  it  had  a  straight  sickle  blade. 

William  S.  McCormick  and  Leander  J.  McCormick,  brothers  of 
C.  II.  McCormick,  also  testified  to  the  making  of  a  machine  in 
1831. 

Mary  McCormick,  mother  of  C.  II.  McCormick,  agreed  in  gen- 
eral with  the  testimony  of  her  sons;  did  not  doubt  but  it  was  cor- 
rect; "it  appears  familiar  to  me,"  but  testified  to  nothing  in 
particular. 

John  Steele,  Jr.— Was  tavernkeeper  at  "  Steele's  tavern";  testi- 
fied as  to  the  year  being  1831  or  1832.  In  his  amended  testimony, 
admitted  that  C.  H.  McCormick  wrote  the  paper  describing  the 
machine  for  him  to  testify  to;  recollects  little  else  about  the  machine 
than  the  straight  sickle  edge. 


48 

Eliza  H.  Steele  refused  to  testify  without  first  seeing  a  certificate 
previously  signed  by  her;  admitted  that  C.  H.  McCormick  wrote 
it  for  her  to  sign;  her  testimony  as  to  the  year  depended  on  the 
building  of  a  certain  house,  on  which  the  workmen  put  i83J. 

John  McCowan — was  a  blacksmith;  testified  that  he  made  the 
"straight  sickle  blade,"  and  that  it  was  "a  long,  straight  sickle" 
blade. 

This  was  most  singular  testimony  to  found  a  claim  of  priority  of 
invention  on,  and  by  which  to  invalidate  another  man's  patent. 
There  was  discrepancy  in  the  evidence  as  to  the  year  of  the  inven- 
tion; also  whether  the  machine  was  intended  for  one  or  two  horses; 
how  the  "  fingers  "  were  arranged,  and  whether  of  wood  or  iron, 
above  or  below  the  "  straight  sickle  blade."  Two  of  the  brother* — 
one  at  least  who  helped  to  make,  if  not  also  to  invent  this  machine — 
testified  that  the  plan  or  arrangement  of  the  machine  here  sworn  to 
was  changed  in  1840,  1841,  1842,  or  1843,  they  did  not  know  which 
— from  nine  to  ten  years  afterwards! 

John  McCowan  swears  positively  that  he  helped  to  build  the  ma- 
chine, so  far  at  least  as  to  forge  "  a  long  straight  sickle,"  but  neither 
he,  or  a  single  one  of  the  seven  sworn  witnesses,  "  ladies  and  gen- 
tlemen" testify  that  the  machine  ever  worked  a  single  hour,  or  cut 
as  much  grain  of  any  kind  as  would  make  a  single  sheaf! 

The  record  shows  that  "on  March  29,  1848",  the  board  met 
agreeably  to  adjournment- -present,  James  Buchanan,  secretary  of 
state;  Edmund  Burke,  commissioner  of  patents,  and  R.  H.  Gillet, 
solicitor  of  the  treasury — and  having  examined  the  evidence  ad- 
duced in  the  case,  decide  that  said  patent  ought  not  to  be  extended." 
(Signed)  JAMES  BUCHANAN,  Sec1}'  State. 

EDMUND  BURKE,  Comnfr  Pafs. 
R.  H.  GILLETT,  Solicitor  Trcas'y, 

On  page  231  of  the  Reports  of  Juries  for  the  Great  London  Ex- 
hibition, and  now  in  the  library  of  Congress,  we  find  the  following: 

"  It  seems  right,"  says  Philip  Pusey,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  "  to  put  on 
record  Mr.  McCormick's  own  account  of  his  progress,  or  some 
extracts  at  least,  from  a  statement  written  by  him,  at  my  request." 

—  [PUSEY.'] 

"  My  father  was  a  farmer  in  the  county  of  Rockbridge,  State  of 
Virginia,  United  States.  He  made  an  experiment  in  cutting  grain 
in  the  year  1816,  by  a  number  of  cylinders  standing  perpendicularly. 
Another  experiment  of  the  same  kind  was  made  by  my  father  in 
the  harvest  of  1831,  which  satisfied  my  father  to  abandon  it. 
Thereupon  my  attention  was  directed  to  the  subject,  and  the  same 
harvest  I  invented  and  put  in  operation  in  cutting  late  oats  on  the 
farm  of  John  Steele,  adjoining  my  father's,  those  parts  of  my  present 


49 

reaper  called  the  platform,  for  receiving  the  corn,  a  straight  blade 
taking  effect  on  the  corn,  supported  by  stationary  fingers  over  the 
edge,  and  a  reel  to  gather  the  corn,  which  last,  however,  I  found 
had  been  used  before,  though  not  in  the  same  combination. 

"  Although  these  parts  constituted  the  foundation  of  the  present 
machine,  I  found  in  practice  innumerable  difficulties,  being  limited 
also  to  a  few  weeks  each  year,  during  the  harvest,  for  experiment- 
ing, so  that  my  first  patent  for  the  Reaper  was  granted  in  June, 
1834. 

"  During  this  interval  /  was  often  advised  by  my  father  and  fam- 
ily to  abandon  it,  and  -pursue  my  regular  business  as  likely  to  be 
•more  profitable,  he  having  given  me  a  farm.  [Italicized  by  C.  II. 
McC.'| 

"  No  machines  were  sold  until  1840,  and  1  may  say  that  they 
\vere  not  of  much  practical  value  until  the  improvements  of  my  sec- 
ond patent  in  1845. 

"  These  improvements  consist  in  reversing  the  angle  of  the  sickle 
teeth  alternately — the  improved  form  of  the  fingers  to  hold  up  the 
corn,  etc.,  an  iron  case  to  preserve  the  sickles  from  clogging,  and  a 
better  mode  of  separating  the  standing  corn  to  be  cut.  Up  to  this 
period  nothing  but  loss  of  time  and  money  resulted  from  my  efforts. 
The  sale  has  since  steadily  increased,  and  is  now  more  than  a  thou- 
sand yearly." 

It  would  be  just  as  conclusive  and  reasonable  for  the  father  of  C. 
H.  McCormick  to  claim  at  this  day  priority  of  invention  for  his 
Reaper,  invented  in  1816,  "  by  a  number  of  cylinders  standing  per- 
pendicularly;"  or  for  "  the  invention  made  by  my  father  in  the  har- 
vest of  1831,  which  satisfied  my  father  to  abandon  it."  This 
authority,  high  and  official  as  all  must  admit  it  to  be  (and  italicized, 
-too,  by  the  writer,  for  a  particular  object),  clearly  proves  that  the 
invention  of  1831  was  an  abortion,  for,  if  the  principle  was  effective 
to  cut  one  acre  of  grain  properly,  any  man  of  common  sense  knows 
that  it  was  equally  so  to  cut  one  thousand  acres;  but  so  complete 
was  the  failure,  that,  "during  this  interval" — between  1831  and 
1834 — "  1  was  oft-cn  advised  by  my  father  and  family  to  abandon  it, 
and  pursue  my  regular  business,  as  likely  to  be  more  profitable,  he 
having  given  me  a  farm" 

Again:  "  No  machines  were  sold  until  1840,  and  I  may  say  that 
they  were  not  of  much  practical  value  until  the  improvements  of 
my  second  patent,  in  1845."  What  these  improvements  were  we 
are  also  informed:  "These  improvements  consist  in  reversing  the 
angle  of  the  sickle  teeth  alternately,  the  improved  form  of  the  fin- 
gers to  hold  up  the  corn,  etc.,  an  iron  case  to  preserve  the  sickle 
from  clogging,  etc.  Up  to  this  period  nothing  but  loss  of  time  and 
money  resulted  from  my  efforts." 


This  letter  is  the  most  perfect  and  complete  estopper  to  priority  of 
invention — not  only  for  1831,  but  to  1841  inclusive,  if  not  to  1845, 
that  could  be  penned.  His  pen  cuts  a  "  cleaner  swath,"  as  we  farmers 
say,  than  ever  did  his  Reaper;  and  this  letter,  at  least,  is  certainly 
C.  H.  McCormick's  own  "invention,"  which  no  one  else  can  lay  any 
claim  to.  Yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  he  contended  before  the 
Board  of  Extensions,  in  order  to  invalidate  Hussey's  patent,  that  he 
invented  a  reaping  machine  nine  years  before!  So  has  perpetual 
motion  been  invented  a  hundred  times — in  the  estimation  of  the 
projectors;  and,  by  his  own  showing,  and  on  oath,  he  sold  but  two 
machines  up  to  1842 — one  of  them  conditionally  sold — being  eleven 
years  after  the  alleged  invention,  and  even  they  had  to  be  re-in- 
vented to  make  them  work,  or  use  the  previous  inventions  of 
others. 

In  this  letter  to  Philip  Pusey,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  C.  H.  McCormick  ad- 
mits that  the  reel  "  had  been  used  before,"  yet  he  includes  it  in  his 
patent  of  1834.  Both  the  specifications  and  drawings  in  the  Patent 
office  conclusively  establish  the  fact  that  James  Ten  Eyck  patented 
the  reel  or  "  revolving  rack,"  or  "  revolving  frame"  in  1825,  used 
not  only  to  gather  the  grain  as  all  such  devices  are  used,  but  by  the 
knives  attached  to  it,  also  intended  to  cut  it  off. 

It  is  certain  the  reel  was  "no  novelty,"  either  in  1831  or  1834, 
when  patented  by  C.  H.  McCormick;  he  tells  us  so  himself;  and  it 
is  most  likely  the  father  of  C.  H.  McCormick  also  used  a  reel  for 
his  "  cylinders  standing  perpendicularly,  in  1816,"  and  also  for  his 
other  plan  in  1831,  and  "  which  satisfied  my  father  to  abandon  it." 
And  it  is-equally  probable  that  most  of  the  "  fathers ""  and  the  sons, 
who  invented  reapers  for  a  hundred  years  preceding  the  date  of 
Hussey's  patent,  used  reels; — indeed  the  reel  seemed  to  be  the  sine 
qua  non  by  many;  most  of  the  inventors  we  have  any  clear  account 
of  resorted  to  the  reel. 

We  will  now  examine  another  invention  patented  by  C.  H.  Mc- 
Cormick, in  1847.  We  here  assert  and  challenge  a  denial,  that 
from  12  to  14  years  after  the  alleged  invention  of  a  reaper  by  C.  H. 
McCormick  in  1831,  and  from  9  to  12  years  after  the  date  of  his 
patent,  in  1834,  ms  raker  -walked  by  the  side  of  his  machine,  while 
Hussev's  raker  rode  on  the  machine  as  they  always  had  done  since 
his  first  machine  that  cut  the  grain  like  "  a  thing  of  life,"  in  Hamil- 
ton couYity,  Ohio,  in  1833.  Yet,  in  1847,  C.  H.  MeCormick  takes 
out  a  patent  for  the  raker's  scat!  This  was  a ^"  novelty,"  and  well 
worth  a  patent! 

His  patent  of  1847,  covering  some  four  or  five  folio  pages,  is 
altogether  to  change  "  the  construction  of  the  machine,"  to  admit  of, 
and  to  patent  the  raker's  seat;  the  substance  of  the  whole  is  com- 
prised within  the  following  brief  extract  from  the  patent  of  1847: 


"  And  the  gearing  which  communicates  motion  to  the  crank  is  placed  back  of  the 
driving  wheel,  which  is  therefore  subject  to  be  clogged  by  sand,  dirt,  straw,  &c — and 
hi  consequence  of  the  relative  position  of  the  various  parts,  the  attendant  is  obliged  to 
•walk  on  the  ground  by  the  side  of  the  machine^  to  rake  the  cut  grain  from  the  platform 
as  it  is  delivered  and  laid  there  by  the  reel.  These  defects  which  have  so  much 
retarded  the  introduction  into  practical -and  general  use  of  reaping  machines,  I  have 
remedied  by  my  improvements,  the  nature  of  which  consists  in  placing  the  driving 
wheels  further  back  than  heretofore,  and  back  ofthe  gearing  which  communicates 
motion  to  the  sickle,  which  is  placed  in  a  line  back  ofthe  axis  ofthe  driving  wheel, 
the  connexion  being  formed,  &€.,  and  also  bringing  the  driving  wheel  sufficiently 
far  back  to  balance  the  /rame  of  the  machine  -with  the  'raker  on  it,  to  make  room  for 
him  to  sit  or  stand  on  the  frame,"  &c.,  &c. — "  which  cannot  be  done,  if  the  raker  -walks 
by  the  side  of  the  machine,  as  HERETOFORE." 

Now  if  C.  H.  McCormick's  testimony  in  his  own  favor,  can  be 
considered  reliable,  he  certainly  had  not  invented  a  seat  for  his  raker 
as  late  as  1845— and  no;  long  prior  to  1847,  when  he  patented  it; 
and  \\\§\.  fourteen  years  after  Hussey  had  used  it  every  year,  success- 
ively. The  raker's  seat  therefore  was  just  as  original  an  invention 
as  the  reel. 

The  "  straight  sickle  blade  "  but  cut  one  way  only,  and  abandoned 
some  10  or  12  years  after  its  conception  in  1831,  as  he  states,  appears 
to  be  the  only  original  idea — properly  belonging  to  whom  it  may — 
in  the  patent  of  1834.  As  to  tne  "  foundation  "  of  the  machine,  viz: 
— the  platform,  cog-wheels,  cranks,  &c.  &c.,  they  have  been  used  by 
every  projector  in  reaping  machines,  for  a  century. 

A  machine  exhibited  at  the  World's  Fair  in  London,  by  C.  H. 
McCormick,  had  the  "  straight  sickle  blade,"  but  alternating  the 
cuts  every  few  inches..  With  such  a  machine  it  is  impracticable  to 
cut  grain,  much  less  grass,  efficiently,  divested  of  the  reel.  That 
plan  has  since  been  changed  to  a  much  more  efficient  blade,  the 
scolloped  edged  sickle.  That  it  was  used  in  the  North  Western 
States  several  years  previous  to  its  adoption  by  C.  H.  McCormick, 
we  believe  admits  of  just  as  little  doubt,  as  rests  with  the  priority  of 
invention  of  the  Reel,  Raker's  seat,  &c. 


A   BRIEF   HISTORY 


OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 


,  INCLUDING  A  FEW  INCIDENTS  FROM  THE  LIFE  OF 

ROBERT  MCCORMICK, 

AS  IT  APPF.ARED  IN  THE  "  FARMER'S  ADVANCE,"  MARCH,  1882,  PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

McCORMICK  HARVESTING  MACHINE  COMPANY, 
C.  H.  McCORMICK,  PRESIDENT. 


THE    INVENTOR    OF    THE    REAPER. 

He  to  whom  this  title  belongs  needs  no  introduction  to  the 
farmers  of  this  or  any  other  country,  and  yet  a  brief  outline  of 
some  incidents  in  the  life  of  the  man  whose  brain  conceived  the 
practical  idea  of  reaping  grain  by  machinery,  and  whose  business 
tact  and  managemenf  made  that  idea  a  success,  will  not  be  with- 
out interest  to  those  using  the  machines  bearing  his  name. 

Cyrus  Hall  McCormick  is  the  eldest  son  of  Robert  McCor- 
mick  and  Mary  A^nn  Hall  McCormick,  and  was  born  in  Rock- 
bridge  Count}',  Virginia,  February  I5th,  1809.  His  father  was  a 
native  of  Rockbriclge,  and  his  mother  a  native  of  Augusta  County, 
in  the  same  State,  and  both  were  of  Scotch-Irish  descent.  The 
father  (Robert  McCormick)  was  a  farmer,  owning  several  farms, 
with  saw  and  grist  mills,  and  having  shops  for  blacksmithing,  car- 
pentering, machinery,  etc.,  in  which  his  own  mechanical  ingenuity 
and  that  of  young  Cyrus  found  scope  for  exercise  and  experiment. 
The  facilities  for  acquiring  an  education  in  those  days  were  very 
limited,  and  if  a  boy  became  educated  it  was  more  through  the 
natural  aptitude  of  a  brilliant  mind,  in  reading  lessons  from  nature 
and  artificial  and  mechanical  surroundings,  than  from  any  advan- 
tages offered  by  the  common  schools.  Born  on  a  farm,  and  in- 
heriting from  his  father  an  inventive  turn  of  mind,  he  very  early 
in  life  saw  that  agriculture  stood  in  great  need  of  inventions  to 
enable  it  to  achieve  its  highest  possibilities,  and  when  only  fifteen 

52 


53 

years  of  age  he  gave  some  evidence  of  what  has  since  distin- 
guished him,  by  constructing  a  "  cradle,"  which  he  himself  used  in 
the  harvest  field. 

The  elder  McCormick  (Robert)  was  the  inventor  and  patentee 
of  several  valuable  machines,  among  which  were  those  for  thresh- 
ing, hydraulic  hemp-breaking,  etc. 

In  1816  he  devised  a  reaping  machine  with  which  he  exper- 
imented in  the  harvest  of  that  year,  and  when  baffled  and  disap- 
pointed in  his  experiments,  he  laid  it  aside  and  did  not  take  it  up 
again  until  the  summer  of  1831.  He  then  added  some  improve- 
ments to  it,  and  again  tested  its  operation  in  a  field  of  grain  on  his 
farm,  when  he  became  so  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  principle 
upon  which  it  was  constructed  could  never  be  practically  successful 
in  cutting  any  promiscuous  crop  of  grain  as  it  stands  in  the  fields, 
that  he  at  once  determined  to  abandon  all  further  efforts  at  making 
it  a  success.  The  radical  defect  in  his  machine  was  that  it  sought 
to  cut  the  grain  as  it  advanced  upon  it  in  a  body,  by  a  series  of 
stationary  hooks  placed  along  the  front  edge  of  the  frame  work, 
having  an  equal  number  of  perpendicular  cylinders  revolving  over 
and  against  the  edge  of  the  hooks,  with  pins  arranged  on  the  per- 
iphery of  the  cylinders  to  force  the  stalks  of  grain  across  the  edges 
of  the  hooks,  and  so  carry  the  grain  in  that  erect  position  to  the 
stubble  side  of  the  machine,  there  to  drop  it  in  a  continuous  swath. 
These  different  separations  of  the  grain  at  the  different  hooks  along 
the  front  edge  of  the  frame  work,  for  such  subsequent  delivery  in 
.swath  at  the  side  of  the  machine,  especially  in  a  crop  of  tangled, 
grain,  were  found  to  be  impracticable. 

The  son's  first  effort  in  the  improvement  of  agricultural  ma- 
chinery after  having  made  his  cradle  was  in  the  construction  of  a 
"hill  side  "  plow,*  patented  in  1831,  for  throwing  alternate  furrows 
on  the  lower  side,  being  thus  a  right  or  left-hand  plow.  This  plow 
was,  however,  superseded  by  a  very  superior  one  invented  by  him, 
called  the  self-sharpening  horizontal  plow,  for  which  letters  patent 
were  granted  to  him  in  1833.  The  latter  plow  was  simple,  strong 
and  durable,  and  did  excellent  work  as  well  on  level  as  on  hilly 
ground.  And  but  for  the  fact  that  the  mind  and  efforts  of  the 
inventor  became  more  absorbed  in  the  pursuit  and  improvement  of 
the  greater  invention  of  his  reaping  machine  about  this  time,  which 
actually  prevented  him  from  supplying  the  rising  demand  for  this 
plow,  he  believed  it  would  have  become,  properly  managed  and 
manufactured,  a  valuable  and  highly  appreciated  implement  of  hus- 
bandry, being  the  first  perfect  self-sharpening  plow  ever  invented. 

In  1831,  when  but  twenty-two  years  old,  a  short  time  after  his 

*See  letter  of  W.  S.  McCofmick,  page  9,  as  to  invention  of  plow. 


54 

father  had  made  the  final  trial  of  his  machine,  Cyrus  H.  McCormick 
invented  the  machine  which  has  made  his  name  so  famous,  and  con- 
ferred upon  mankind  such  unnumbered  benefits. 

After  observing  the  character  of  the  experiment  made  with  his 
father's  machine,  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  ripe  grain,  standing 
as  it  is  usually  found,  and  in  a  more  or  less  tangled  state,  could  only 
be  successfully  harvested  by  taking  it  as  a  body,  without  the  separa- 
tions at  different  points  along  the  cutting  apparatus  (as  done  by  his 
father's  machine).  It  then  occurred  to  him,  that  to  cut  and  save  the 
grain  properly,  a  sufficient  motion  for  that  purpose  given  to  an  edged 
instrument  was  only  necessary,  and  that  in  advancing  upon  the  body 
of  grain  to  be  cut  by  a  machine,  the  requisite  motion  in  addition  to 
the  forward  motion  of  the  machine,  might  be  supplied  laterally  by 
a  crank  attached  to  the  end  of  a  reciprocating  blade.  This  principle 
as  invented  by  Mr.  McCormick,  is  the  foundation  of  all  reaping 
machines. 

In  1831,  the  reaper  triumphed  in  the  harvesting  of  several  acres 
of  oats.  The  following  year  it  cut  fifty  acres  of  wheat.  For  several 
years,  while  experimenting  with,  exhibiting  its  operation  in  the  field, 
and  working  the  reaper  himself  ("though  operating  well  in  his  hands) 
he  deemed  it  best  to  postpone  putting  it  in  market. 

.  His  first  patent  was  granted  in  1834.  In  1845  he  removed  to 
Cincinnati,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  himself  there,  and  dur- 
ing that  year  he  obtained  a  second  patent  for  several  valuable  im- 
provements. Additional  patents  were  granted  for  still  more  valuable 
improvements  in  1847  and  1848. 

About  the  year  1850  the  two  brothers  of  Mr.  McCormick, 
William  S.  and  *Leander  J.,  both  younger  than  himself,  were  intro- 
duced into  his  business  at  Chicago.  In  1859  they  were  associated 
with  him  as  partners  in  the  manufacturing,  and  have  rendered 
important  assistance  in  the  business;  William  S.  being  at  the  head 
of  the  office  department,  and  Leander  J.  at  the  head  of  the  manu- 
facturing department;  and  the  latter  is  now  the  vice-president  of 
the  McCormick  Harvesting  Machine  Company.  -  In  the  death  of 
his  brother,  William  S.,  in  1865,  Mr.  McCormick  sustained  a  great 
loss.  He  was  a  man  of  rare  excellence  of  character  and  superior 
business  abilities. 

Owing  to  the  various  modifications  that  the  world  of  intellect 
employed  in  the  business  of  reaper  building,  when  the  free  use  of 
Mr.  McCormick's  expired  patents  gave  them  the  fundamental  prin- 

*  See  extract  from  C.  H.  McCormick's  memorial  to  Congress,  page  17,  in  which 
he  states  that,  in  the  year  1847,  "  I  gave  my  brother  (L.  J.  McCormick)  a  one-third 
"  part  in  that  contract,  to  induce  him  to  attend  to  the  manufacture  at  that  place 
"  (Cincinnati)."  Leander  J.  McCormick  came  to  Chicago  in  1848  as  a  partner, 
whtre  he  has  remained  ever  since,  not  all  the  time  as  a  partner 


55 

ciples  to  work  upon,  fierce  competition  commenced,  which  has  been 
continued  to  the  present  day. 

With  dauntless  courage  Mr.  McCormick  pressed  forward  against 
this  united  opposition,  and  at  all  times  he  has  had  the  satisfaction  of 
seeing  his  machines  acknowledged  as  the  best  manufactured.  He 
has  been  the  champion  in  every  contest  in  which  his  machine  has 
ever  been  engaged,  beginning  with  a  trial  with  Obed  Hussey's  ma- 
chine in  1843,  at  Richmond,  Virginia,  where  a  jury  of  judges  ap- 
pointed by  the  spectators  upon  the  field,  awarded  him  the  victory. 
And  as  evidence  of  his  subsequent  triumphs,  he  holds  the  gold  med- 
al of  the  American  Institute,  given  in  1849;  the  only  prize,  the  grand 
council  medal,  given  at  London  in  1851;  the  grand  gold  medal  giv- 
en at  Paris  in  1855;  the  grand  prize  gold  medal  given  at  London  in 
1862;  the  silver  medal,  the  highest  prize  awarded  at  a  field  trial  in 
Lancashire,  England,  in  1862;  the  grand  gold  medal  given  at  Ham- 
burg in  1863;  the  grand  prize  given  at  Paris  in  1867,  the  highest 
honor  of  that  great  exposition,  together  with  the  decoration  of  the 
Cross  of  the  Legion  of  Honor;  two  grand  gold  medals  given  at 
Vienna  in  1873;  tvvo  bronze  medals,  the  highest  prize  given  at  Phila- 
delphia in  1876;  the  grand  gold  medal  of  the  Royal  Agricultural 
Society  of  England,  in  a  competitive  trial  of  self  wire-binding  har- 
vesting machines,  in  1878;  the  onlv  grand  prize  given  for  harvesting 
machines  at  Paris,  in  1878,  together  with  the  decoration  of  the  Offi- 
cer of  the  Legion  of  Honor,  with  the  election  by  the  French  Insti- 
tute as  a  member  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  in  the  department  of 
Rural  Economy,  as  having  done  more  for  the  cause  of  agriculture 
than  any  other  living  man. 

In  1879  ^e-  McCormick  machines  were  awarded  the  highest 
prize  at  the  International  Exhibition  at  Sydney,  and  in  1880  the 
highest  award — a  gold  medal  for  every  variety  of  harvesting  ma- 
chinery— at  the  World's  Fair  at  Melbourne,  Australia.  In  August, 
1 88 1,  the  McCormick  Twine  Binder  (the  latest  addition  to  the  list 
of  these  famous  harvesting  machines)  received  from  the  Royal 
Agricultural  Society  of  England  the  gold  medal  for  the  most  per- 
fect twine  binder,  after  competition  at  Derby,  England,  with  all  the 
prominent  machines  from  Great  Britain  and  America. 

These  triumphs  were  the  results  of  hard-fought  battles,  in  which 
the  competing  machines  vere  not  always  the  strongest  point  of  the 
enemies'  line,  but  unreasonable  prejudice  was.  At  the  World's 
Fair  in  London  in  1851,  before  the  trial  which  resulted  in  a  grand 
victory  for  Mr.  McCormick's  reaper,  the  London,  Times  character- 
ized the  machines  as  "  a  cross  between  an  Astley  chariot,  a  wheel- 
barrow and  a  flying  machine."  This  expression  of  ridicule  voiced 
the  foreign  sentiment  which  met  Mr.  McCormick  at  this  first  inter- 
national exhibition,  but  his.  victory  was  so  absolute  that  this  same 


journal  pronounced  the  reaper  "  the  most  valuable  contribution  to 
the  exhibition,  and  of  sufficient  value  alone  to  pay  the  whole  expenses 
of  the  exhibition."  Thus,  through  the  difficulties  that  would  have 
disheartened  a  less  determined  man,  he  pressed  steadily  forward, 
giving  battle  to  all  who  offered  battle,  until  the  world  freely 
acknowledged  him  to  be  the  inventor  of  not  only  the  first,  but  also 
of  the  best  reaping  machine. 

Unlike  most  other  great  inventors,M r.  McCormick  has  had  the  busi- 
ness tact,  shrewdness  and  energy  to  become  the  manufacturer  of 
the  machine  he  invented,  and  to  keep  it  in  point  of  superiority  far 
in  advance  of  all  its  competitors  or  imitators  during  the  past  fifty 
years,  and  at  the  same  time  to  push  its  sale  throughout  the  civilized 
world  to  such  an  extent  that  its  name  is  a  household  word  literally 
at  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

Perhaps  the  distinguishing  trait  in  Mr.  McCormick's  character 
that  has  more  than  anything  else  tended  to  crown  all  his  under- 
takings with  success,  has  been  his  invincible  will  and  indomitable 
courage. 

Sometimes  he  seems  to  a  stranger  slow  and  cautious  in  making 
up  his  mind  to  any  course  of  action,  but  when  once  his  mind  is 
made  up,  he  is  as  firm  as  the  everlasting  hills  in  his  purpose,  and 
nothing  seems  capable  of  thwarting  that  purpose. 

No  impediment  is  too  great,  no  combination  of  difficulties  too 
intricate,  and  no  opposition  too  strong  for  him  to  overcome.  He 
can  wait  and  patiently  bide  his  time  to  accomplish  a  purpose,  but 
when  action  is  necessary  at  any  time  he  resolves  and  executes  with 
promptness  and  decision. 

Mr.  McCormick  has  lived  in  Chicago  since  1847,  and  in  the 
bright  evening  of  his  days  lives  to  enjoy  the  well-merited  honors 
and  riches  he  has  earned. 

We  suppose  Mr.  McCormick  has  been  the  recipient  of  more 
honors  from  the  hands  of  his  fellow-men  of  all  ranks  and  stations 
—  from  the  hired  laborer  in  the  harvest  field  to  the  emperor  on  the 
throne  —  than  any  other  living  inventor,  and  yet  he  is  one  of  the 
most  modest  and  unassuming  of  men,  while  rounding  out  the  meas- 
ure of  his  life  at  the  head  of  the  great  business  bearing  his  name 
and  in  the  midst  of  his  happy  family,  in  deeds  of  benevolence  and 
philanthrophy. 

His  name  will  go  down  to  posterity  as  one  of  the  great  benefac- 
tors of  the  human  race,  whose  victories  have  been  won  in  the  suc- 
cessful effort  to  lessen  toil  and  bless  mankind. 


ACCOUNT  OF  HONORS  AWARDED  IN  EUROPE. 


The   following  is  an  extract  from  an  article  which   appeared    in  the  Chicago 
Tribune  of  January  1, 1880,  headed 

"THE  TRADE  BOOM." 


HARVESTING  MACHINERY. 

"  It  remained  for  this  last  and  greatest,  the  Exposition  Universalle 
of  1878,  to  fittingly  crown  the  inventor  and  his  work.  There  the 
McCormick  harvester  and  inventor  received  the  great  prize  gold 
medal,  being  the  only  harvesting-machine  to  receive  this  dis- 
tinction; though  other  machines,  and  the  McCormick  as  well,  were 
given  lesser  honors. 

"  While  the  exposition  thus  singled  out  this  harvester  for  the 
highest  honors  in  its  power  to  bestow,  the  inventor,  Mr.  Cyrus  H. 
McCormick,  was  decorated  by  the  French  nation  as  an  officer  of 
the  Legion  of  Honor  for  his  distinguished  services  to  mankind. 

"  But  one  other  American  of  fame,  and  it  must  be  all  the  more 
gratifying  to  the  recipient  that,  in  both  cases,  the  proud  guerdons 
have  been  won  through  victories  in  peace  rather  than  war.  But 
France  has  not  yet  done  with  showering  honors  on  the  head  of  the 
inventor,  for  that  world-famed  body  of  savans,  the  Institute  of 
France,  recognizing  that  Mr.  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  had  done  more 
to  elevate  agriculture  than  any  other  man  the  world  has  produced, 
elected  him  to  membership. 

"In  1878,  also,  the  McCormick  received  the  unprecedented  dis- 
tinction of  a  gold  medal  from  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society  of 
England,  at  the  Bristol  trials,  where  a  great  number  of  harvesters 
were  tried  by  the  most  crucial  of  tests. 

"  Mr.  McCormick  is  a  plain,  unpretending,  hard-working  citizen 
of  Chicago,  who  undoubtedly  values  most  highly  of  all  his  victories 
the  simple-recognition  by  the  people  of  all  the  civilized  world  of  the 
superiority  of  the  McCormick  harvester  over  all  others.  And  this 
is  shown  by  the  widely  extended  and  constantly  increasing  demand 
for  these  harvesters,  which  necessitates,  each  year,  increasing  facil- 
ities for  manufacture. 

"  The  McCormick  reaping  and  mowing  machines  were  never  so 
popular  as  now,  and  the  company  manufacturing  them  (the  old  or 
new)  never  more  prosperous  than  now." 

67 


The  foregoing  letter  brought  out,  shortly  afterwards,  tiie  following  article  in  Thi> 
Factory  and  Farm,  January  15,  a  journal  of  American  agricultural  industries  and 
farm  implements,  published  in  Chicago: 


Was  McCormick  the  Inventor  of  Harvesting  Machinery  ? 

And  as  such  was  he  entitled  to  the  honors  received  by  him  from 

France? 

The  Tribune  of  Jaimary  ist,  in  its  extra,  purports  to  give  facts 
and  figures  regarding  "  The  Trade,  Commerce  and  Manufactures 
of  Chicago."  Under  the  head  of  "  Harvesting  Machinery,"  some 
statements  are  made  so  utterly  untrue  and  contrary  to  the  records, 
that,  in  justice  to  the  public,  they  should  be  flatly  cotradicted  as 
they  deserve.  The  article  in  question  glorified  C.  H.  McCormick 
as  "  the  great  inventor  "  of  harvesting  machines,  the  great  genius 
which  ( ?)  evolved  the  idea  and  perfected  the  invention  which  has 
been  of  such  untold  benefit  to  mankind  ";  and  referring,  to  his  -suc- 
cess in  France,  tells  us  that  "  it  remained  for  this  last  and  greatest, 
the  Exposition  Universal  of  187,8,  to  fittingly  crown  the  inventor 
and  his  work  "  by  giving  the  McCormick  harvester  and  binder  the 
first  prize,  and  by  loading  him,  the  supposed  inventor,  with 
decorations  and  unusual  honors.  Now,  while  we  have  no  dispo- 
sition to  question  the  merits  of  the  so-called  McCormick  harvester 
and  binder,  which,  without  doubt,  is  a  good  machine — though  the 
iudgment  of  foreigners  as  to  its  value  is  of  no  consequence— we 
do  assert  that  C.  H.  McCormick  was  not  entitled  to  any  of  the 
honors  showered  upon  him  as  its  inventor.  To  be  more  explicit, 
he  not  only  did  not  invent  this  said  machine,  nor  mechanically  as- 
sist in  the  combinations  of  the  inventions  of  others  which  produced 
it,  but  he  never  invented  or  produced  any  essential  elementary  part 
in  any  reaping  or  harvesting  machine  from  first  to  last.  These 
assertions  are  broad,  but  absolutely  true.  They  stand  squarely 
upon  the  records  and  the  history  and  state  of  the  art.  C.  H. 
McCormick,  or  any  one  for  him,  cannot  deny  them  with  proofs, 
therefore  he  is  not  entitled  to  recognition  as  the  man  who  "  had 
done  more  to  elevate  agriculture  than  any  man  the  world  has 
produced,"  because  of  his  supposed  inventions  in  this  line;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  development  of  Western  agriculture 
has  elevated  him,  and  that  he  has  more  money,  and  received  more 
honors,  "  than  any  man  the  world  has  produced,"  by  appropriating 
the  brains  of  others,  and  the  credit  due  them  as  inventors,  are 
propositions  m'uch  more  defensible.  Without  questioning  his 


59 

ability  as  a  business  man  .and  manufacturer,  but  with  reference  to 
these  assumptions  of  invention  only,  let  us  search  the  records:  A 
short  history  of  the  progress  of  reaper  invention,  with  facts  and 
figures,  will  be  interesting  information.  For  a  better  understand- 
ing of  .the  subject,  let  it  be  understood  that  the  essential  features 
of  a  grain-harvesting  machine  (first  assuming  that  it  must  have 
carrying  wheels  atjd  frame)  are  the  sick-le  and  guard,  the  platform 
to  receive  the  cut  gra.in,  and  the  reel  to  assist  in  the  cutting  and 
laying  'of  the  cut  grain  upon  the  platform,  and  there  must  be 
also  some  method  of  delivering  the  grain  from  platform  to  ground, 
either  by  manual  operation  or  automatic  devices.  These  are  ele- 
mental principles— rnot  one  of  them  the,  invention  of  C.  H.  McCor- 
mick.  Machinery  mounted  on  wheels,  for  harvesting  grain,  was 
used  in  Gaul,  and  known  also  to  the  Carthaginians  about  the  be- 
ginning of  our  Christian  era,  and  all  the  essentials  above  described 
were  invented,  combined,  and  publicly,  though  not  generally,  used 
in  Great  .Britain  during  the  early  part  of  this  century. 

American  invention  seems  to  have  begun  in  1803,  when  Richard 
French  and  R.  T.  Hawkins,  of  New  Jersey,  showed  a  reaper  hav- 
ing ground  and  grain  wheels,  with  horses  attached  at  side  and  for- 
ward of  cutting  bar,  as  is  usual  now.  From  December  28th,  1805, 
to  August  8th,  1828,  twelve  patents  were  granted  by  the  United 
States  on  reapers.  In  1831  Wm  Manning,  of  Plamfield,  N.  J.,  in- 
vented a  a  practically  operative  machine,  which  did  good  work,  and 
was  very  little  different  from  the  ordinary  reaper  in  use  twenty  or 
twenty-rive  years  ago;  but  the  man  who  is  mtitled  to  the  most 
credit,  as-  inventor  and  pioneer  in  this  business,  is  Obed  Hussey, 
who,  December  3ist,  1833,  patented  the  machine  (successfully  oper- 
ated in  previous  harvest,  well  known  and  in  use  since  to  this  day), 
which  combined  all  the  main  features — except  the  reel,  which  was 
then  an  old  device — of  practical  reapers,  down  to  the  time,  at  least, 
when  "  harvesters  "  so-called  came  into  the  field.  Hussey's  machine 
was  introduced  into  Illinois  in  1834,  anc*  in  New  York,  Missouri, 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  in  following  years.  Mark  that  all 
these  came  before  C.  H.  McCormick,  who,  in  June,  1834,  obtained 
his  first  patent,  in  which  he  particular!}'  claimed  a  vibrating  sickle 
having  smooth  edge,  or  toothed  like  a  saw.  His  other  devices 
were  unimportant  or  not  novel,  and  these  special  claims  proved 
useless,  and  were  discarded  by  himself  when  he  made  machines 
for  the  public.  The  "  great  idea "  which  he  then  "  evolved " 
added  substantially  nothing  to  the  progress  of  the  art.  Some 
twenty-five  or  thirty  reaper  patents  were  issued,  and  several  differ- 
ently named  machines  manufactured  between  this  time  and  his 
next  evolution,  January  3ist,  1845,  which  latter  consisted  chiefly  in 
claims  for  lance-head-shaped  guards,  and  reversed  serratures  on  a 


6o 

sfraight-edged  sickle.  One  devjce  proved  not  novel,  as  it  had 
been  used  by  Moore  &  Hascal  from  1835  to  1839.  And  both 
"  great  ideas  "  were  of  such  "  untold  value  to  mankind,"  that  but 
few  could  now  tell  what  they  were.  His  other  patents  cover  de- 
tails or  points  peculiar  to  his  own  machines,  and  are  not  elemen- 
tary. At  this  time  there  were  several  manufacturers  of  reapers, 
which  latter  were  then,  and  for  some  years  after,  of  the  old  style, 
from  which  the  cut  grain  was  delivered  upon  the  gi'oiind  through 
manual  operation;  and  the  next  great  advance  was  the  applica- 
tion of  automatic  devices  to  perform  this  function.  Reapers  thus 
constituted  were  known  as  "self-rakers."  C.  H.  McCormick,  in- 
stead of  "  keeping  pace  with  the  march  of  time,"  kept  on  building 
the  old  style  of  machine  year  after  year,  while  other  manufac- 
turers were  inventing,  perfecting  and  developing  the  self-raker, 
until  finding  at  last  that  he  was  falling  entirely  to  the  rear,  he 
bought  up  some  and  settled  for  other  self-rake  patents,  and  com- 
menced building  that  style  of  reaper.  In  the  meantime  no  one 
was  paying  tribute  to  McCormick  for  the  use  of  his  "  great  in- 
ventions." He  tested  the  strength  of  his  patents  in  suit  against 
the  Manny's,  and  got  beaten,  but  Hussey  sued  him  and  obtained 
judgment.  Other  manufacturers  had  invented,  perfected  and  in- 
troduced the  jointed-bar,  two-wheeled  mowers,  after  which  he  began 
manufacturing  them,  and  again  he  was  sued  and  judgment  ob- 
tajned.  About  1860  a  machine  having  marked  peculiarities  was 
brought  out  by  the  Marsh  Bros,  in  DeKalb  County,  UK  It  car- 
ried two  binders,  and  being  of  entirely  different  style  and  shape 
from  ordinary'  reapers,  it  was  called  a  "  harvester."  Its  manufac- 
ture began  at  Piano,  in  1*863,  since  which  time  it  has  been  con- 
tinually before  the  public.  Everybody  knows  that  it  is  the  pio- 
neer harvester — the  founder  of  the  class  now  known  by  that 
general  name.  From  1870  and  onward  several  other  harvesters 
sprung  up  and  were  manufactured,  differing  more  or  less  in  minor 
points  from  the  Marsh.  Again  C.  H.  McCormick  had  failed  to 
keep  his  place  "  in  the  van  " — he  was  the.  last  man  in  the  rear — 
for  he,  in  connection  with  his  partners  (who  seem  to  be  generally 
ignored),  only  commenced  building  harvesters  in  1875,  a°d  with 
the  usual  luck  of  such  pioneers,  they  were  soon  after  sued  for  in- 
fringement by  the  Marsh  Bros. — suit  is  still  pending.  Next  year 
the  Withington  binder  was  attached,  and  the  new  combination  was 
dubbed  the  McCormick  Harvester  and  Binder.  Except  some 
minor  points  in  attachment  of  parts,  there  was  no  invention  in 
the  case,  and  the  little  credit  of  making  this. successful  combination 
of  others'  ideas  is  due  to  his  partners,  who  did  the  work  for  which, 
as  the  supposed  inventor,  he  has  absorbed  all  the  honors.  Long 
before  the}-  built  their  harvester  and  binder,  the  other  manufac- 


6i 

turers,  notably  Walter  A.  Wood  &  Co.,  had  developed  and  were 
placing  such  machines  on  the  market  in  large  numbers. 

Each  grand  step  in  the  development  and  perfection  of  harvest- 
ing machinery  was  bitterly  opposed  by  C.  H.  McCormick  in  prac- 
tice and  in  precept,  until  it  had  established  itself  in  spite  of  him,  and 
had  forced  him  to  "  keep  pace  with  the  march  of  time,"  for  he 
was  the  sort  of  pioneer  that  hangs  on  the  tail  of  progress.  And 
from  the  facts  herein  given,  people  can  draw  their  own  conclu- 
sions as  to  whether  France  did  well  in  thus  "  showering  honors 
on  the  head  of  the  great  inventor  "• — this  "  plain  and  unpretend- 
ing citizen  "  who  so  modestly  wears  his  hard-earned  laurels,  but 
seems  to  want  the  public  often  reminded  why  and  where  he  got 
them,  in  which  laudable  effort  we  hereby  humbly  assist. 


NOTARY  PUBLICS  CERTIFICATE. 


State  of  Illinois,  ) 

COUNTY  OF  Du  PAGE,    j 


I,  JAY  P.  SMITH,  a  NOTARY  PUBLIC  in  and  for  and 
residing  in  the  County  of  Du  Page  and  State  aforesaid,  DO 
HEREBY  CERTIFY  that  the  foregoing,  carefully  read,  by  me, 
is  a  true  and  complete  and  correct  copy  of  the  original  pamph- 
let entitled  "MEMORIAL  OF  ROBERT  McCORMICK" 
that  was  published  by  Barnard  &  Gunthorp,  Printers,  44  and  46 
La  Salle  Street,  Chicago,  Illinois,  in  the  year  of  1885. 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  NOTARIAL  SEAL,  this  ist  day  of  June,  A.  D. 


JAY  P.    SMITH. 


THE  LIBRARY 
),  ^UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


A    000721  153     5 


